DUKE 

UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/reconstructionco01burg 


RECONSTRUCTION  AND 
THE  CONSTITUTION 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


Seven  volumes,  12mo,  with  maps  and  plans. 

Price  per  volume,  $1.00,  net. 

THR  COLONIAL  ERA.— By  Rev.  George  P.  Fisher, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in 
Yale  University. 

THE  FRENCH  WAR  AND  THE  REVOLUTION.-By 
William  M.  Sloane,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History  in 
Columbia  University. 

THE  MAKING  OF  THE  NATION.— By  General  Francis 
A.  Walker,  LL.D.,  late  President  of  the  Massachusetts 
Institute  of  Technology. 

THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD.— By  John  W.  Burgess,  Ph.D., 
LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Science  and  Constitutional 
Law  in  Columbia  University. 

THE  CIVIL  WAR  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION.-By 
John  W.  Burgess,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political 
Science  and  Constitutional  Law  in  Columbia  University. 
2 vols. 

RECONSTRUCTION  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION.-By 
John  W.  Burgess,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Political 
Science  and  Constitutional  Law  in  Columbia  University. 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


RECONSTRUCTION  AND 
THE  CONSTITUTION 


1866-1876 


BY 

JOHN  W.  BURGESS,  Ph.D..  LL.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  AND  CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW,  AND  DEAN  OF 
THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE,  IN  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1909 


Copyright,  1902,  bt 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 


To  the  memory 
of 

RICHMOND  MAYO-SMITH, 
pupil,  colleague,  and  life-long  friend, 
with  grief  too  deep  for  words  at  his  ioss, 
this  volume 

is  affectionately  inscribed 
by  the  Author 


■ 


PREFACE 


In  my  preface  to  “ The  Middle  Period  ” I wrote  that 
the  re-establishment  of  a real  national  brotherhood  be- 
tween the  North  and  the  South  could  be  attained  only  on 
the  basis  of  a sincere  and  genuine  acknowledgment  by 
the  South  that  secession  was  an  error  as  well  as  a failure. 
I come  now  to  supplement  this  contention  with  the 
proposition  that  a corresponding  acknowledgment  on 
the  part  of  the  North  in  regard  to  Reconstruction  be- 
tween 1866  and  1876  is  equally  necessary. 

In  making  this  demand,  I must  not  be  understood  as 
questioning  in  the  slightest  degree  the  sincerity  of  the 
North  in  the  main  purpose  of  the  Reconstruction  policy 
of  that  period.  On  the  other  hand,  I maintain  that  that 
purpose  was  entirely  praiseworthy.  It  was  simply  to 
secure  the  civil  rights  of  the  newly  emancipated  race, 
and  to  re-establish  loyal  Commonwealths  in  the  South. 
But  there  is  now  little  question  that  erroneous  means 
were  chosen. 

Two  ways  were  open  for  the  attainment  of  the  end 
sought.  One  was  that  which  was  followed,  namely, 
placing  the  political  power  in  the  hands  of  the  newly 
emancipated  ; and  the  other  was  the  nationalization  of 
civil  liberty  by  placing  it  under  the  protection  of  the 

vii 


PREFACE 


viii 

Constitution  and  the  national  Judiciary,  and  holding 
the  districts  of  the  South  under  Territorial  civil  gov- 
ernment until  the  white  race  in  those  districts  should 
have  sufficiently  recovered  from  its  temporary  disloyalty 
to  the  Union  to  be  intrusted  again  with  the  powers  of 
Commonwealth  local  government. 

There  is  no  doubt  in  my  own  mind  that  the  latter 
was  the  proper  and  correct  course.  And  I have  just  as 
little  doubt  that  it  would  have  been  found  to  be  the 
truly  practicable  course.  The  people  in  the  loyal  Com- 
monwealths were  ready  in  1866  to  place  civil  liberty  as 
a whole  under  national  protection  ; and  not  half  of  the 
whites  of  the  South  entertained,  at  that  moment,  dis- 
loyal purposes  or  feelings.  Even  the  solid  Democratic 
South  was  yet  to  be  made  ; and  I doubt  most  seriously 
if  it  would  ever  have  been  made,  except  for  the  great 
mistakes  of  the  Republican  party  in  its  choice  of  means 
and  measures  in  Reconstruction. 

I will  not,  however,  enter  upon  the  argument  in  ref- 
erence to  this  question  at  this  point.  That  belongs  to 
the  body  of  the  book.  I will  only  add  that,  in  my 
opinion,  the  North  has  already  yielded  assent  to  this 
proposition,  and  has  already  made  the  required  ac- 
knowledgment. The  policy  of  Mr.  Hayes’s  administra- 
tion, and  of  all  the  administrations  since  his,  can  be 
explained  and  justified  only  upon  this  assumption.  And 
now  that  the  United  States  has  embarked  in  imperial 
enterprises,  under  the  direction  of  the  Republican  party, 
the  great  Northern  party,  the  North  is  learning  every 
day  by  valuable  experiences  that  there  are  vast  differ- 
‘ ences  in  political  capacity  between  the  races,  and  that 


PREFACE 


IX 


it  is  the  white  man’s  mission,  his  duty  and  his  right,  to  ' 
hold  the  reins  of  political  power  in  his  own  hands  for  j 
the  civilization  of  the  world  and  the  welfare  of  man- 
kind. 

Let  the  South  be  equally  ready,  sincere,  and  manly  in 
the  consciousness  and  the  acknowledgment  of  its  share 
in  past  errors,  and  the  reconciliation  will  be  complete 
and  permanent  ! 

I have  again  to  express  my  thanks  to  my  friend  and 
colleague,  Dr.  Cushing,  for  his  aid  in  bringing  this 
volume  through  the  press.  I desire  also  to  acknowledge 
the  courtesy  of  the  New  York  Independent  for  allowing 
parts  of  my  article  on  the  Geneva  Award,  published 
some  years  ago  in  that  esteemed  journal,  to  be  incor- 
porated in  the  last  chapter  of  this  book. 

John  W.  Burgess. 


323  West  57th  St.,  New  York  City, 
January  22d,  1902. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

The  Theory  of  Reconstruction 1 

CHAPTER  II 

President  Lincoln’s  Views  and  Acts  in  Regard  to  Re- 
construction   8 

CHAPTER  III 

President  Johnson’s  Plan  of  Reconstruction  and  His 

Proceedings  in  Realization  of  it  . . . .31 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Congressional  Plan  of  Reconstruction  . . .42 

CHJlPTER  V 

The  Congressional  Plan  ( Continued ) .....  62 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Congressional  Plan  (Continued) 84 

xi 


Sll 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  VII 

PAGE 

The  Congressional  Plan  ( Completed ) 107 

CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Execution  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  . . . 144 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  Attempt  to  Remove  the  President  ....  157 

CHAPTER  X 

Reconstruction  Resumed 195 

CHAPTER  XI 

President  Grant  and  Reconstruction  ....  222 

CHAPTER  XII 

“ Carpet-Bag  ” and  Negro  Domination  in  the  Southern 
States  between  1868  and  1876  247 

CHAPTER  XIII 

The  Presidential  Election  of  1876  and  its  Conse- 
quences   280 

CHAPTER  XIV 

International  Relations  of  the  United  States  between 

1867  and  1877  299 

INDEX 329 


RECONSTRUCTION  AND 
THE  CONSTITUTION 


RECONSTRUCTION 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  THEORY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION 

The  Conception  of  a “ State  ” in  a System  of  Federal  Government 
— The  Different  Kinds  of  Local  Government  Provided  for 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States— Local  Government 
Under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States — “State”  De- 
structibility  in  the  Federal  System  of  Government — The  Effect 
on  “State”  Existence  of  the  Renunciation  of  Allegiance  to 
the  Union— The  Idea  of  “ State  ” Perdurance — The  Constitu- 
tional Results  of  Attempted  Secession. 

The  key  to  the  solution  of  the  question  of  Recon- 
struction is  the  proper  conception  of  what  a “ State  ” is 
in  a systenr of  federal  government.  This  is  The  con - 
a conception  which  is  not  easy  to  acquire,  -State”  in  a 
and  which,  when  acquired,  is  not  easy  to  erafemgovern- 
liold.  The  difficulty  lies,  chiefly,  in  the  ten-  ment 
dency  to  confound  the  idea  of  a “ State  ” in  such  a 
system  with  a state  pure  and  simple.  Until  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  is  clearly  seen  and  firmly  ap- 
plied, no  real  progress  can  be  made  in  the  theory  and 
practice  of  the  federal  system  of  government.  Now 
the  fundamental  principle  of  a state  pure  and  simple  is 
sovereignty,  the  original,  innate,  and  legally  unlimited 
power  to  command  and  enforce  obedience  by  the  inflic- 
tion of  penalties  for  disobedience.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  nature  of  a “ State  ” in  a system  of  federal  gov- 

1 


2 


RECONSTRUCTION 


ernment  is  a very  different  thing.  Such  a “ State  ” is 
a local  self-government,  under  the  supremacy  of  the 
general  constitution,  and  possessed  of  residuary  powers. 
In  the  federal  system  of  the  United  States,  it  is  a local 
self-government,  under  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  laws  and  treaties  of 
the  central  Government  made  in  accordance  with  that 
Constitution,  republican  as  to  form,  and  possessed  of 
residuary  powers — that  is,  of  all  powers  not  vested  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  exclusively  in  the 
central  Government,  or  not  denied  by  that  Constitution 
to  the  “ State.” 

It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  this  is  not  the  only  kind 
of  local  government  known  in  the  constitutional  law  and 
The  differ-  practice  of  the  United  States.  There  is,  and 
focal klgovem-  always  has  been,  since  the  establishment  of 
cdCfor  m°vthe'  ^Ie  federal  system  in  1789,  for  the  larger  part 
omh^Uaited  the  population  which  declared  united  in- 
states. dependence  of  Great  Britain  in  1776,  another 

kind  of  local  government  for  a part  of  the  United  States, 
a local  government  which  is  not  self-government,  a local 
government  which  is  but  an  agency  of  the  central  Gov- 
ernment. In  fact,  there  have  been  at  times  three  kinds 
of  local  government  in  the  political  system  of  the  United 
States,  viz.,  local  government  by  the  executive  depart- 
ment of  the  central  Government — that  is,  local  govern- 
ment by  executive  discretion,  martial  law — local  gov- 
ernment as  an  agency  of  the  legislative  department  of 
the  central  Government — that  is.  Territorial  govern- 
ment— and  “ State  ” government.  That  is  to  say,  since 
1789  the  whole  of  the  United  States,  territorially,  has 
never  been  under  the  federal  system  of  government,  but 
has  always  been  partly  under  federal  government  and 
partly  under  the  exclusive  government  of  Congress,  and 
has  sometimes  been  partly  under  federal  government. 


THE  THEORY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION 


3 


partly  under  the  exclusive  government  of  Congress,  and 
partly  under  the  exclusive  government  of  the  President. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  recognizes  and 
provides  for  all  three  of  these  species  of  local  govern- 
ment, and  vests  in  Congress  the  power  of  , 

. ° . Local  gov- 

advancmg  the  population  of  a district,  the  eminent  under 
confines  of  which  district  shall  be  determined  tion  of  the 

i i — i *i  i , j,  ii  i j ii  United  States. 

by  Congress  itself,  from  the  lower  to  the 

higher  forms  of  local  government.  While  the  Consti- 
tution does  not  expressly  impose  upon  Congress  the 
duty  of  making  or  permitting  the  change  from  one  kind 
of  local  government  to  another,  it  impliedly  indicates 
that  Congress  shall  determine  the  kind  of  local  govern- 
ment which  the  population  of  any  particular  district 
shall  enjoy  in  accordance  with  the  conditions  prevailing, 
at  any  given  moment,  among  them.  If  the  maintenance 
of  law  and  order  requires  the  immediate  exercise  of 
military  power,  Congress  may,  and  should,  permit  the 
continuance  of  the  President’s  discretionary  government. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  this  is  not  necessary,  Congress 
may,  and  should,  confer  civil  government,  under  the 
Territorial  form,  and  when  the  population  of  a Territory 
shall  have  become  ripe  for  local  self-government  and 
capable  of  maintaining  it.  Congress  may,  and  should, 
allow  the  Territory  to  become  a “ State  ” of  the  Union, 
a Commonwealth. 

Such  being  the  nature  of  a “ State”  of  the  Union 
and  such  the  method  of  its  creation,  what  reason  is 
there  for  speaking  of  the  “States”  in  a sys-  .. state..de  l 
tern  of  federal  government  as  indestructible  ? structibiiity 

, , . , , , „ in  the  system 

As  they  emerge  from  the  status  of  Ternto-  of  federal 
ries  under  the  exclusive  power  of  Congress,  government- 
upon  having  attained  certain  conditions,  why_may  they 
not  revert  to  the  status  of  Territories  upon  having  lost 
these  conditions  of  “ State  ” existence ; nay,  why  may 


4 


RECONSTRUCTION 


they  not  revert  to  the  status  of  martial  law  by  having 
lost  all  of  the  conditions  of  civil  government  ? The  dic- 
tum “once  a State  always  a State”  in  a system  of  fed- 
eral government  has  no  sound  reason  in  it.  Under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  every  “ State”  of  the 
Union  may  through  the  process  of  amendment  be  made  a 
province  subject  to  the  exclusive  government  of  the  cen- 
tral authorities  ; and  when  those  who  wield  the  powers  of 
The  effect  a “ State  ” renounce  the  “ State’s  ” allegiance 
on  -state”  to  the  United  States,  renounce  the  supremacy 

existence  of  r J 

the^  renuncia-  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
gance  to  the  of  the  laws  of  the  central  Government  made 
in  accordance  therewith,  then  from  the  point 
of  view  of  political  science  it  will  become  a state  pure 
and  simple,  a sovereignty,  if  and  when  it  permanently 
maintains,  by  its  own  power  or  by  the  assent  of  the  United 
States,  this  attitude  against  the  United  States,  but 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  constitutional  law  of  the 
United  States  it  simply  destroys  one  of  the  fundamental 
conditions  of  local  self-government,  and  gives,  thus,  war- 
rant to  the  central  Government  to  resume  exclusive  gov- 
ernment in  the  district,  and  over  the  population  which 
has  become  disorganized  by  refusing  obedience  to  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  as  fixed  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  Whether  the  central  Government 
has  the  physical  power,  at  a given  moment,  to  do  this 
or  not,  is  another  question.  It  certainly  has,  at  the 
outset,  the  legal  right.  The  “State”  is  no  longer  a 
“State”  of  the  Union,  nor  has  it  become  a state  out  of 
the  Union.  It  is  simply  nowhere.  The  land  is  there 
and  the  people  are  there,  but  the  form  of  local  govern- 
ment over  it  and  them  has  been  changed  from  local 
seZ/'-government  to  a Congressional  or  a Presidential 
agency,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Neither  is  there  any  reason  for  holding  that  the  old 


THE  THEORY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION 


5 


“ State  ” organization  perdures  as  an  abstract  something 
under  the  forms  of  Congressional  or  Presidential  rule, 
and  will  emerge  of  itself  when  these  are  with- 
drawn. If  the  “State”  form  of  local  gov-  ••  state ’^per- 
ernment  should  be  established  again  over  that  durance- 
same  district  and  over  the  population  inhabiting  it,  it 
would  be  an  entirely  new  creation,  even  though  it  should 
recognize  the  forms  and  laws  and  obligations  of  the  old 
“ State.”  It  must  be,  however,  remembered  that  both 
the  executive  and  judicial  departments  of  the  The  accept- 
United  States  Government  committed  them-  ““  ^ ^ 
selves  fully  to  this  theory  of  “ State  ” perdur-  of°th™uiuted 
ance  as  an  abstract  something  unaffected  by  States- 
the  loss  of  the  conditions  of  the  “State”  form  of  local 
government  through  the  rebellion  of  the  “State”  or- 
ganization against  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  that  Congress  did 
the  same  thing,  at  first,  in  some  degree.  It  was  this 
error  which  caused  all  of  the  confusion  in  the  ideas  and 
processes  of  Reconstruction,  and  we  ought,  therefore,  to 
rid  ourselves  of  it  at  the  start,  at  the  same  time  that  we 
recognize  its  influence  over  the  minds  of  those  who  en- 
gaged in  the  difficult  work  of  the  years  between  1865 
and  1876. 

From  the  view  which  we  take  of  the  nature  of  a 
“State”  in  a system  of  federal  government,  and  its 
possible  destructibility,  there  is  not  much  Thg  con 
difficulty  in  determining  the  constitutional  stitutionai 

, , , , , , , , . results  of  at- 

results  of  an  attempt  upon  the  part  of  such  tempted  se- 
a “ State  ” to  break  away  from  its  connec-  ce8Blon' 
tions  in  that  system.  What  it  does,  stripped  of  all  mis- 
conception and  verbiage,  is  simply  this  : it  forcibly  re- 
sists the  execution  of  the  whole  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
and  destroys  the  prime  condition  of  its  own  existence 
by  making  it  necessary  for  the  central  Government  to 


6 


RECONSTRUCTION 


assert  exclusive  power  in  the  district  where  this  hap- 
pens. Naturally  the  executive  department  of  the  cen- 
tral Government  must  act  first,  and  subdue  by  force  the 
force  which  has  been  offered  against  the  supremacy  of 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States.  After 
that  shall  have  been  accomplished,  the  question  as  to 
how  the  population  in  the  rebellious  district  shall  be 
civilly  organized  anew,  is  one  for  the  legislative  depart- 
ment of  the  central  Government  exclusively.  Congress 
may  fashion  the  boundaries  of  the  district  at  its  own 
pleasure,  and  may  establish  therein  such  a Territorial 
organization  of  civil  local  government  as  it  may  see  fit, 
and  is  limited  in  what  it  may  do  in  this  respect  only  by 
the  constitutional  immunities  of  the  individual  subject 
or  citizen  under  every  form  of  civil  government  provided 
or  allowed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Congress  may  also  enable  the  existing  population  of 
such  a district,  or  such  part  of  that  population  as  it 
may  designate,  to  organize  the  “State”  form  of  local 
government,  and  may  grant  it  participation  in  the 
powers  of  the  central  Government  upon  an  equality  with 
the  other  “ States  ” in  the  federal  system.  These  things 
are  matters  in  which  the  President,  as  the  executive 
power,  cannot  interfere.  As  participant  in  legislation, 
however,  he  may,  at  his  own  discretion,  use  his  powers 
of  recommendation  and  veto. 

If  rebellion  against  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  should  not  be  committed 
by  an  existing  “ State”  organization,  but  by  a new  or- 
ganization claiming  to  be  the  “State”  organization 
within  the  district  concerned,  the  existing  organization 
remaining  loyal,  but  requiring  the  aid  of  the  central 
Government  to  maintain  its  authority,  then  the  with- 
drawal of  that  aid  by  the  President  after  the  accom- 
plishment of  its  purpose  would,  of  course,  leave  the  old 


THE  THEORY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION 


7 


“ State”  organization  with  restored  authority,  and  Con- 
gress would  have  no  function  to  perform  in  the  re-es- 
tablishment  of  civil  government  in  such  a district,  or 
in  the  readmission  of  its  population  to  participation  in 
the  central  Government.  This  was  the  course  followed 
in  Missouri  and  Kentucky,  and  it  was  the  course,  which, 
at  first,  was  attempted  in  the  case  of  Virginia.  In  the 
first  two  cases  it  was  entirely  correct.  In  the  last  it 
had  to  be  abandoned,  for  reasons,  and  on  account  of 
conditions,  which  will  be  explained  later. 

What  we  have,  therefore,  in  the  theory  and  history  of 
Reconstruction  is  the  case  of  existing  “ State  ” organiza- 
tions forcibly  resisting  the  execution  of  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  and  stricken  down  by  the  executive  power 
of  the  central  Government  in  the  attempt,  that  power 
being  exercised  at  its  own  motion  and  in  its  -own  way. 


CHAPTER  II 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN’S  VIEWS  AND  ACTS  IN  REGARD 
TO  RECONSTRUCTION 

Did  Mr.  Lincoln  Have  any  Theory  of  Reconstruction  ? — Mr.  Lin- 
coln’s Plan — Mr.  Lincoln’s  Oath  of  Allegiance,  and  the  Loyal 
Class  to  be  Created  by  the  Taking  of  this  Oath — The  Proviso  in 
this  Plan — Seward’s  Idea  of  Reconstruction  and  the  Views  of 
Congress  and  the  Judiciary — Ten  Per  Centum  “ State  ” Gov- 
ernments— Reconstruction  in  Louisiana  under  Mr.  Lincoln’s 
Plan — The  New  Orleans  Convention — The  Election  of  a Gov- 
ernor— The  Constitutional  Convention  of  April,  1864,  and  the 
Constitution  Framed  by  it  and  Adopted  by  the  Voters — Recon- 
struction in  Arkansas — The  Beginning  of  Resistance  in  Con- 
gress to  the  President’s  Plans — The  Wad  e-Davis  Bill — Analysis 
of  this  Measure — The  President’s  Attitude  toward  the  Bill — 
The  President’s  Proclamation  of  July  8th,  1864 — The  Wade- 
Davis  Protest  against  the  President’s  Proclamation — The  Presi- 
dent’s Message  of  December  6th,  1864 — The  Threatened  Schism 
in  the  Republican  Party  and  the  Presidential  Election  of  1864 
— The  Refusal  of  Congress  to  Count  the  Electoral  Vote  from 
any  “ State  ” which  had  Passed  the  Secession  Ordinance — 
Reconstruction  in  Tennessee — The  Twenty-second  Joint  Rule 
—Reconstruction  in  Tennessee  Continued — Civil  Government 
Re-established  in  Tennessee— The  Thirteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States — The  Proposition  of 
Amendment  as  it  Came  from  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 
Senate — The  Passage  of  the  Proposition  by  the  Senate — The 
House  Draft — Rejection  of  the  Senate’s  Draft  in  the  House 
— Reconsideration  of  the  Senate’s  Measure  in  the  House,  and 
its  Final  Passage. 

Some  of  the  ardent  admirers  of  Mr.  Lincoln  are  dis- 
posed to  dispute  the  proposition  that  he  had  any  theor}^ 

8 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN’S  VIEWS  AND  ACTS  9 


of  Reconstruction.  It  seems,  however,  that  they  are  un- 
consciously influenced  in  this  by  their  desire  to  escape 
the  conviction  that  Mr.  Lincoln  held  an  er-  „ 

roneous  theory  of  Reconstruction.  It  does 
not  seem  that  one  can  read  impartially  Mr.  Recons  true- 
Lincoln’s  proclamation  of  December  8,  1863, 
without  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
a very  decided  notion  on  the  subject.  It  is  true  that  he 
said  that  it  must  not  be  understood  that  no  other  possi- 
ble mode  of  Reconstruction  than  that  proclaimed  by  him 
would  be  acceptable,  but  he  laid  down  a very  distinct 
mode,  and  he  said  it  was  the  best  he  could  suggest  under 
existing  impressions. 

This  plan  recognized,  in  the  first  place,  the  continued 
existence  of  the  “ States”  in  rebellion  as  “ States”  of, 
and  in,  the  Union.  More  exactly,  it  re-  Mr>  Lin. 
garded  the  rebellion  against  the  United  coln’B  re- 
states within  these  “States”  as  the  act  of  combina- 
tions of  disloyal  persons,  and  not  as  the  act  of  the 
“ States  ” at  all.  These  combinations  had  subverted 
the  loyal  governments  within  these  “ States,”  but  the 
“ States  ” themselves  were  not  disloyal,  because  they 
could  not  be.  They  were  impersonal  entities,  incapable 
of  committing  treason  or  any  other  wrong.  According 
to  this  view  the  work  of  Reconstruction  consisted  simply 
in  placing  the  loyal  element  in  a “ State  ” in  possession 
of  the*government  of  the  “ State.” 

In  the  second  place,  therefore,  Mr.  Lincoln’s  plan 
contained  the  principle  that  the  work  of  Reconstruction 
was  an  executive  problem.  It  was  the  work  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive, through  the  power  of  pardon,  to  create  a loyal 
class  in  a “ State  ” which  had  been  the  scene  of  rebel- 
lion, and  it  was  the  work  of  the  Executive  to  support 
that  class  by  the  military  power  in  taking  possession  of, 
organizing,  and  operating,  the  “State”  government. 


10 


RECONSTRUCTION 


And  so,  Mr.  Lincoln  undertook  to  create  such  a class 
by  constructing  an  oath  of  future  loyalty  and  allegiance 
Mr.  Lin-  to  the  United  States  of  the  following  tenor  : 

anengBiaanhce!  “I, , do  solemnly  swear,  in  the 

ciass^to'Te  presence  of  Almighty  God,  that  I will  hence- 
SdngdofythiB  forth  faithfully  support,  protect,  and  defend 
oath-  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 

the  union  of  the  States  thereunder ; and  that  I will  in 
like  manner  abide  by  and  faithfully  support  all  acts  of 
Congress  passed  during  the  existing  rebellion  with  ref- 
erence to  slaves,  so  long  and  so  far  as  not  repealed, 
modified,  or  held  void,  by  Congress  or  by  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  ; and  that  I will  in  like  manner  abide 
by  and  faithfully  support  all  proclamations  of  the  Presi- 
dent during  the  existing  rebellion  having  reference  to 
slaves,  so  long  and  so  far  as  not  modified  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  So  help  me  God  ; ” and  by  ordaining  that  all 
persons  who  would  voluntarily  take  this  oath,  unless 
they  had  been  civil  or  diplomatic  officers  of  the  “ so- 
called  Confederate  Government,”  or  military  officers 
thereof  above  the  rank  of  colonel  in  the  army  or  lieu- 
tenant in  the  navy,  or  had  left  seats  in  the  United 
States  Congress  or  judicial  office  under  the  United 
States,  or  had  resigned  commissions  in  the  army  or 
navy  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  aid  in  the  rebel- 
lion, or  had  been  engaged  in  treating  colored  persons 
found  in  the  United  States  service  in  any  capacity,  or 
white  persons  in  charge  of  them,  in  any  other  manner 
than  as  prisoners  of  war,  would  be  regarded  as  having 
re-established  their  loyalty  and  allegiance  to  the  United 
States. 

And  he  then  undertook  to  put  this  class  in  possession 
of  the  functions  and  powers  of  the  “loyal  State  gov- 
ernments ” subverted  by  the  rebellion,  by  proclaiming 
and  declaring,  “ that  whenever  in  any  of  the  States  of 


president  Lincoln’s  views  and  acts  11 


Arkansas,  Texas,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Tennessee, 
Alabama,  Georgia,  Florida,  South  Carolina,  and  North 
Carolina,  a number  of  persons,  not  less  than  one-tenth 
in  number  of  the  votes  cast  in  such  State  at  the  Presi- 
dential election  of  the  year  a.d.  1860,  each  having  taken 
the  oath  aforesaid,  and  not  having  since  violated  it,  and 
being  a qualified  voter  by  the  election  law  of  the  State 
existing  immediately  before  the  so-called  act  of  seces- 
sion, and  excluding  all  others,  shall  re-establish  a State 
government  which  shall  be  republican  and  nowise  con- 
travening said  oath,  such  shall  be  recognized  as  the  true 
government  of  the  State,  and  the  State  shall  receive 
thereunder  the  benefits  of  the  constitutional  provision 
which  declares  that  ‘ the  United  States  shall  guarantee 
to  every  State  in  this  Union  a republican  form  of  gov- 
ernment and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  inva- 
sion, and,  on  application  of  the  Legislature,  or  the  exec- 
utive (when  the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against 
domestic  violence.’  ” 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  careful  to  say  in  this 
proclamation  that  “ whether  members  sent  to  Congress 
from  any  State  shall  be  admitted  to  seats,  The  proviso 
constitutionally  rests  exclusively  with  the  mthlBPlan- 
respective  Houses,  and  not  to  any  extent  with  the  Exec- 
utive,” but  it  is  plain  that  he  did  not  think  the  Houses 
could  constitutionally  use  their  power  of  judging  of  the 
qualifications  and  elections  of  their  members  to  keep 
members  from  “ States  ” reconstructed  upon  his  plan 
from  taking  their  seats  on  the  ground  that  these  “ States  ” 
had  not  been  properly  reconstructed. 

And  it  is  also  true  that  there  occurs  in  the  proclama- 
tion another  paragraph  which  appears  to  militate  against 
the  theory  of  the  perdurance  of  a “ State”  through  the 
period  of  its  rebellion  against  the  United  States.  It 
reads : “ And  it  is  suggested  as  not  improper  that  in 


12 


RECONSTRUCTION 


constructing  a loyal  State  government  in  any  State  the 
name  of  the  State,  the  boundary,  the  subdivisions,  the 
constitution  and  the  general  code  of  laws  as  before  the 
rebellion  be  maintained,  subject  only  to  the  modifica- 
tions made  necessary  by  the  conditions  hereinbefore 
stated,  and  such  others,  if  any,  not  contravening  such 
conditions  which  may  be  deemed  expedient  by  those 
framing  the  new  State  government.” 

It  certainly  may  appear  from  this  language  that 
while  Mr.  Lincoln  regarded  it  as  convenient  and  de- 
sirable that  the  new  “State”  should  be  considered  a 
continuation  of  the  old  “ State,”  yet  that  he  did  not 
look  upon  it  as  absolutely  necessary.  Still,  it  seems 
more  probable  that  this  was  only  his  cautious  habit  of 
leaving  open  a way  of  escape  out  of  any  position  when 
necessity  or  prudence  might  require  its  abandonment 
than  that  he  doubted  the  correctness  of  his  idea  of  the 
indestructibility  of  the  “ States  ” in  spite  of  the  rebel- 
lion of  a part  of  their  population,  or  even  of  the  whole 
of  their  population. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  alone  in  this  view  of  the  nature 
of  the  “ States  ” of  the  Union  and  the  problem  of  Re- 
Seward’s  construction.  His  able  Secretary  of  State 
Btract(on?Ca°nd  certainly  agreed  with  him  ; the  resolutions 
congress 8 and  an(^  a°ts  °f  Congress  down  to  that  time  may 
the  court.  be  better  explained  upon  this  theory  than 
upon  any  other  ; and  so  far  as  the  Supreme  Court  had 
dealt  with  the  question,  its  dicta,  if  not  its  exact  deci- 
sions, had  indicated  the  same  trend  of  opinion.  The 
President  felt,  therefore,  no  hesitation  in  applying  his 
plan  in  the  specific  cases  that  were  in  a condition  for  its 
realization. 

Before  treating  of  his  reconstruction  of  Louisiana  and 
Arkansas  under  this  plan,  however,  there  are  two  points 
of  the  proclamation  which  should  be  briefly  noticed. 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN’S  VIEWS  AND  ACTS  13 


The  first  is  the  omission  of  Virginia  from  the  names  of 
the  “States”  to  which  the  proclamation  should  apply. 
The  reason  for  this  is  simple,  and  easily  un-  Virginia  not 
derstood.  The  President  had  always  recog-  cVnstructkm 
nized  what  was  called  the  Pierpont  Govern-  pcre°idin?Lin0 
ment  at  Alexandria  as  the  true  government  coin’s  view, 
of  Virginia.  Virginia,  therefore,  according  to  his  view 
needed  no  reconstruction.  It  belonged  in  the  class  with 
Kentucky  and  Missouri. 

The  other  point  is  the  proposition  to  found  “State” 
government  upon  ten  per  centum  of  the  population  of 
the  “State.”  Now  we  know  that  “State” 
government  in  the  federal  system  of  the  tum  “State » 
United  States  is  local  self-government.  But  g0Tenimeilt8- 
local  self-government  cannot  really  exist  where  the  part 
of  the  population  holding  the  legal  authority  does  not 
really  possess  the  sinews  of  power  ; and  where  the  con- 
ditions of  the  society  are  democratic,  or  anything  like 
democratic,  one-tenth  of  the  population  cannot  really 
possess  the  sinews  of  power.  The  actual  power  to  make 
their  government  valid,  to  enable  their  government  to 
govern  would  have  to  come  from  the  outside.  While 
this  may  happen  under  certain  temporary  exigencies 
without  destroying  local  self-government  on  the  whole, 
yet  it  cannot  be  permitted  as  a principle  upon  which  to 
build  a local  self-government,  a “ State  ” in  a federal 
system.  Provincial  governments,  Territorial  govern- 
ments may  be  sustained  in  that  way,  but  the  distin- 
guishing principle  of  “ State  ” government  forbids  it. 
It  is  simply  not  “ State”  government  when  holding  in 
this  way  the  power  to  govern,  as  the  principle  of  its  life, 
no  matter  what  name  we  may  give  it.  Upon  this  point, 
then,  Mr.  Lincoln’s  reasoning  was  crude  and  erroneous, 
and  when  applied  was  destined  to  result  in  mischievous 
error. 


14 


RECONSTRUCTION 


As  far  back  as  the  first  week  in  December  of  1862 
General  Shepley,  then  Military  Governor  of  Louisiana, 
Reccmetruc-  by  permission  from  the  President,  or- 

anaunderMr*  dered  an  election  for  members  of  Congress, 
Lincoln’s  plan.  in  the  districts  over  which  his  jurisdiction 
extended.  The  President  had  cautioned  him  against  any 
choice  of  Northern  men  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  and 
had  declared  to  him  that  such  a procedure  would  be 
“disgraceful  and  outrageous.”  The  General  heeded 
the  warning,  and  two  old  citizens  of  Louisiana,  Messrs. 

Hahn  and  Flanders,  were  chosen,  and  were 

The  election 

of  members  of  admitted  by  the  House  of  Representatives  to 
congress.  their  seats.  This  happened  in  February  of 
1863,  and  it  was  certainly  good  evidence  that  the  House 
of  Representatives  was,  at  that  moment,  resting  on  the 
theory  of  the  perdurance  of  the  “ State  ” of  Louisiana 
throughout  the  rebellion  within  its  limits  against  the 
United  States. 

Things  went  no  further  than  this,  however,  during 
the  year  1863,  the  military  situation  requiring  the  whole 
thought  and  activity  of  the  Government.  On 

The  New  0 J 

Orleans  con-  the  8th  of  January,  1864,  however,  a conven- 
tion was  held  at  New  Orleans  for  the  purpose 
of  advancing  the  work  of  reconstruction.  This  conven- 
tion requested  General  Banks  to  appoint  an  election  for 
officers  of  the  “ State  ” government.  The  General  com- 
plied, naming  the  22d  day  of  February  following  for  the 
election,  and  the  4th  of  March  for  the  installation  of  the 
The  election  officers  so  chosen.  Mr.  Hahn  was  elected 
of  a governor.  an(j  (jn]y  installed  Governor,  and  was  soon 
after  declared  by  the  President  to  be  “invested,  until 
further  orders,  with  the  powers  hitherto  exercised  by 
the  Military  Governor  of  Louisiana.”  The  next  step 
was  for  the  new  Governor  to  order  an  election  of  dele- 
gates to  a constitutional  convention  and  the  assembly  of 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  VIEWS  AND  ACTS  15 


the  same  in  convention,  for  the  purpose  of  so  amending 
and  revising  the  constitution  as  to  make  it  fit  the  new 
conditions  created  by  the  war.  This  was  „ The  coneti- 
done  in  March  and  April  of  1864,  and  an  vention^of 
anti-slavery  constitution  was  established  for  andthe coneti- 
Louisiana.  The  instrument  drafted  and  pro-  by  it  and 
posed  by  the  convention  was  adopted  by  the  vo°ePrse.dbythe 
voters.  Eight  thousand  four  hundred  and  two  votes 
were  cast  upon  the  question  of  adoption,  about  sixteen 
per  centum  of  the  vote  cast  at  the  Presidential  election 
of  1860.  This  brought  the  action  of  the  voters  within 
the  President’s  ten  per  centum  rule.  The  vote  was  al- 
most five  to  one  in  favor  of  adoption.  The  President’s 
scheme  was  now  put  to  the  practical  test,  both  in  Louisi- 
ana and  Arkansas,  during  the  spring  of  1864. 

Congress  was,  however,  by  this  time  becoming  con- 
vinced that  Reconstruction  was  a legislative  problem, 
that  is,  a problem  to  be  solved  by  Congres-  The  begin. 
sional  acts  and  constitutional  amendment.  °nreco£ 
This  is  evidenced  not  only  by  the  fact  that  f^si  dentes 
neither  House  would  admit  representatives  Plan- 
from  Arkansas  elected  under  the  new  “ State  ” organi- 
zation to  seats,  but  by  the  more  pronounced  attitude 
expressed  in  what  is  known  as  the  Wade-  The  Wade. 
Davis  measure  upon  the  direct  question  at  DaTiBbiU- 
issue.  These  gentlemen,  Mr.  Benjamin  F.  Wade  and  Mr. 
Henry  Winter  Davis,  the  former  the  chairman  of  the 
“Committee  on  the  Rebellious  States”  in  the  Senate, 
and  the  latter  the  chairman  of  a committee  having  the 
same  name  and  functions  in  the  House,  originated  a bill 
and  carried  it  through  both  Houses  of  Congress,  which, 
for  the  first  time,  embodied  the  views  of  Congress  on  the 
subject  of  Reconstruction.  This  bill  was  finally  passed 
on  July  4,  1864,  and  it  contained  provisions  of  the  fol- 
lowing tenor  : The  eleven  “ States  ” which  had  passed 


16 


RECONSTRUCTION 


secession  ordinances  were  all  treated  as  rebellions  com- 
munities, and  the  President  was  authorized  to  appoint  a 
provisional  governor  for  each.  This  governor  should  ex- 
ercise all  the  powers  of  civil  government  in  the  commu- 
nity to  which  he  might  be  appointed  until  “ State  ” gov- 
ernment should  be  recognized  by  Congress  as  restored 
therein.  An  oath  of  future  allegiance  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  was  then  prescribed,  and  the 
provisional  governor  in  each  “ State  ” was  ordered, 
whenever  rebellion  in  his  “ State  ” should  be  suppressed, 
to  direct  the  United  States  Marshal  to  enroll  all  the 
white  male  citizens  of  the  United  States,  resident  within 
the  “ State,”  in  the  respective  counties  of  the  “ State,” 
and  give  them  the  opportunity  to  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  United  States.  The  bill  then  directed 
that  when  a majority  of  such  citizens  should  take  this 
oath,  they  might  be  permitted  to  elect  delegates  to  a 
convention,  which  convention  might  take  action  for  the 
establishment  of  “ State  ” government.  The  bill  dis- 
qualified all  persons  who  had  held  any  office,  civil  or 
military,  “ State  ” or  Confederate,  in  rebellion  against 
the  United  States,  or  who  had  voluntarily  borne  arms 
against  the  United  States,  from  voting  for  delegates,  or 
from  being  elected  as  delegates,  to  the  convention.  The 
bill  then  provided  that  the  convention  thus  elected  and 
assembled  might  form  a “ State”  constitution,  but  must 
insert  in  it  clauses  abolishing  slavery,  repudiating  all 
debts,  “ State  ” or  Confederate,  created  by,  or  under  the 
sanction  of,  the  usurping  power,  and  disqualifying  all  per- 
sons who  had  held  office  civil  or  military,  “ State  ” or  Con- 
federate, under  the  usurping  power,  except  civil  offices 
merely  ministerial,  and  military  offices  below  the  rank  of 
colonel,  from  voting  or  being  elected  governor  or  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature.  The  bill  then  provided  for  the 
submission  of  the  constitution  so  formed  to  the  voters, 


pkesident  Lincoln’s  views  and  acts  17 


and  if  ratified  by  a majority  thereof,  required  the  pro- 
visional governor  to  certify  the  same  to  the  President. 
It  then  provided  that  the  President,  after  obtaining  the 
consent  of  Congress  thereto,  should  proclaim  the  new 
“ State”  government  as  established,  and  as  the  constitu- 
tional government  of  the  “ State,”  after  which  Repre- 
sentatives  and  Senators  in  Congress,  and  electors  of  the 
President,  might  be  chosen  in  said  “State.”  Finally, 
the  bill  abolished  slavery  at  once  in  all  the  rebellious 
“States”  and  imposed  penalties  upon  all  persons  at- 
tempting thereafter  to  hold  anyone  in  involuntary  ser- 
vitude ; and  declared  all  persons  who  should  thereafter 
hold  office  civil  or  military,  “State”  or  Confederate,  in 
the  rebel  service,  except  an  office  purely  ministerial  or 
under  the  grade  of  colonel,  not  to  be  citizens  of  the 
United  States. 

A brief  analysis  of  this  bill  will  show  that  Congress 
was  nearer  to  some  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  Recon- 
struction than  was  the  President.  In  the  Analysis  of 
first  place.  Congress  claimed  Reconstruction  tWsmeaBUre- 
as  a legislative  problem.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  true 
theory  upon  that  point.  In  the  second  place.  Congress 
required  the  loyalty  to  the  United  States  of  at  least  a 
majority  of  the  white  adult  males  as  the  basis  of  “ State  ” 
government,  local  self-government.  That  also  was  un- 
doubtedly true  political  theory  as  has  been  already 
explained.  In  the  third  place.  Congress  asserted  the 
power  to  abolish  slavery  within  the  limits  of  those 
“ States  ” whose  legislatures  or  conventions  had  passed 
the  ordinances  of  secession.  That  is,  Congress  dealt 
with  these  districts  not  as  “ States  ” of  the  Union,  but 
as  territories  or  districts  subject  to  the  exclusive  author- 
ity of  the  central  Government.  Congress  was  here 
beginning,  at  least,  to  act  upon  the  idea  that  the  dis- 
tricts in  rebellion  did  not  perdure,  as  “ States,”  through- 


18 


RECONSTRUCTION 


out  the  rebellion,  but  had  lost  thereby  the  forms,  pow- 
ers and  functions  of  “State”  governments,  and  were 
neither  out  of  the  Union  nor  in  the  Union  as  “ States,” 
but  were  under  the  central  Government  of  the  Union  as 
territory  inhabited  by  a population  disorganized  as  to 
local  government.  This  was  also  sound  political  science, 
and  the  President  ought  to  have  heeded  its  teachings. 

But  he  did  not.  He  did  not,  it  is  true,  veto  the  bill. 
He  simply  allowed  the  session  to  expire  without  signing 
The  Presi-  it-  This  having  happened  in  less  than  ten 
foward^the  days  from  the  time  it  was  submitted  to  him, 
bm-  the  bill  failed,  as  provided  in  such  cases  by 

the  Constitution.  He,  however,  issued  on  the  8th  of 
July  a proclamation  in  regard  to  the  subject,  in  which 
The  Presi-  he  objected  to  the  setting  aside  of  the  “free 
mationof  July  State  constitutions  and  governments  already 
8, 1864.  adopted  and  installed  in  Arkansas  and  Lou- 
isiana ; ” doubted  the  competency  of  Congress  to  abolish 
slavery  within  the  “States;”  expressed  the  hope  and 
expectation  that  this  might  be  done  for  the  whole  coun- 
try by  constitutional  amendment ; declared  his  willing- 
ness to  have  the  loyal  people  in  any  of  the  rebellious 
“States”  reconstruct  their  governments  upon  the  Con- 
gressional plan,  if  they  should  choose  to  do  so  ; but  de- 
clared also  his  unwillingness  to  commit  himself  inflex- 
ibly to  any  single  plan  of  restoration  ; and  virtually 
asked  the  voters  to  make  the  difference  between  himself 
and  Congress  upon  the  subject  an  issue  in  the  coming 
Presidential  election. 

This  was  one  of  the  boldest  acts  of  Mr.  Lincoln’s 
career  as  President,  and  it  is  little  wonder  that  men  of 
so  much  intelligence,  courage  and  tenacity  as  Messrs. 
Wade  and  Davis  did  not  allow  the  proclamation  to  go 
unanswered.  Congress  had  adjourned,  as  we  have  seen, 
before  the  appearance  of  the  proclamation.  There  was. 


president  Lincoln’s  views  and  acts  19 


therefore,  no  way  for  Congress  as  a whole  to  make  im- 
mediate answer.  Messrs.  Wade  and  Davis  believed  that 
the  public  interests  would  suffer  if  the  answer  should  be 
postponed  until  the  next  meeting  of  Congress.  They, 
therefore,  issued  a protest  against  the  proclamation  over 
their  own  names.  The  protest  was  printed  Wadg 
in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  August  5,  Da-ns ^protest 
"r'"J  It  was  an  intemperate  arraignment  President’s 


1864. 


proclamation. 


of  the  President.  It  declared,  among  other 
things,  that  “ a more  studied  outrage  on  the  legislative 
authority  of  the  people  had  never  been  perpetrated  ; ” 
that  the  President  had  “ greatly  presumed  on  the  for- 
bearance which  the  supporters  of  his  Administration” 
had  “ so  long  practised,  in  view  of  the  arduous  conflict 
in  which”  they  were  “engaged  and  the  reckless  feroc- 
ity of”  their  “political  opponents  ; ” that  he  must  un- 
derstand that  their  support  was  not  of  a man  but  of  a 
cause  ; and  that  he  must  confine  himself  to  his  executive 
duties,  and  leave  political  reorganization  to  Congress. 

Such  denunciations  of  the  President’s  purposes  could 
have  but  one  effect,  viz.,  the  strengthening  of  his  hands 
by  the  support  of  the  people,  who  so  generally  trusted 
him,  in  the  election  of  1864.  It  injured  Mr.  Davis  so 
much  that  he  failed  of  even  a renomination  for  his  seat 
in  Congress. 

The  President,  on  the  other  hand,  used  his  triumph 
with  great  tact  and  moderation.  He  made  no  reference, 
in  his  message  of  December  6,  1864,  either  m „ . 
to  his  proclamation  or  to  the  protest  which  dent’s  mes- 
had  been  so  fiercely  hurled  against  it.  He  cumber  % 
simply  informed  Congress  that  important  1864' 
movements  had  occurred  during  the  year  “ to  the  effect 
of  molding  society  for  durability  in  the  Union;” 
and  that  “ 12,000  citizens  in  each  of  the  States  of 
Arkansas  and  Louisiana  ” had  “ organized  loyal  State 


20 


RECONSTRUCTION 


governments,  with  free  constitutions,  and”  were  “ear- 
nestly struggling  to  maintain  and  administer  them.” 
He  also  spoke  of  the  gratifying  situation  and  movements 
in  Maryland,  Kentucky,  Missouri  and  Tennessee. 

It  may  be  that  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  interpret  his  great 
victory  at  the  polls  in  November  preceding  as  a specific 
The  threat-  aPProva^  of  bis  Reconstruction  policy.  In 
ened  schism  the  spring  and  early  summer  of  1864,  the 

m the  Repub-  f ° J . 

lican^  gjrty,  Kepublican  party  was  threatened  with  schism 
dentiai  elec-  largely  upon  the  subject  of  Reconstruction, 
tion  of  1864.  gight  clays  before  the  meeting  of  the  regular 
nominating  convention  of  the  party,  that  is  on  the  31st 
of  May,  some  three  hundred  and  fifty  men,  representing, 
or  professing  to  represent,  the  more  radical  element  of 
the  party,  met  in  convention  at  Cleveland,  Ohio.  Gen- 
eral John  Cochrane  of  New  York  was  made  chairman 
of  the  body,  and  General  John  C.  Fremont  and  General 
John  Cochrane  were  nominated  by  it  for  the  presidency 
and  vice-presidency  of  the  United  States.  The  twelfth 
section  of  the  platform  provided,  “ that  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  the  rebel  States  belongs  to  the  people,  through 
their  representatives  in  Congress,  and  not  to  the  Ex- 
ecutive.” 

The  regular  convention  met  June  7th  at  Baltimore, 
and  adopted  a platform  which  took  no  sides  in  regard  to 
Reconstruction,  but  simply  sought  to  rally  all  Union 
men  around  the  President  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the 
Union  and  putting  an  end  to  the  rebellion.  Many  war 
Democrats  took  part  in  it  who  favored  Lincoln’s  ideas  of 
Reconstruction,  and  many  Republicans  who  did  not. 
The  Democratic  convention  met  at  Chicago  August  27th 
and  adopted  a platform  which  virtually  proclaimed  the 
war  a failure,  and  demanded  a cessation  of  hostilities 
preparatory  to  a compromise  with  the  Confederates. 
Their  nominee.  General  McClellan,  with  whom  was 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN’S  VIEWS  AND  ACTS  21 


associated  on  the  ticket  Mr.  George  H.  Pendleton  of 
Ohio,  repudiated  the  platform  but  accepted  the  nomi- 
nation and  made  the  race. 

Under  the  condition  of  schism  in  the  Republican 
ranks,  his  chances  seemed  at  first  fair.  But  on  Septem- 
ber 21st,  Generals  Fremont  and  Cochrane,  the  nominees 
of  the  radical  Republicans,  withdrew  from  the  contest, 
and  the  reunion  of  the  Republican  party  on  the  Balti- 
more platform  was  effected.  It  was  thus  a question 
whether  the  overwhelming  electoral  vote  for  Lincoln  and 
Johnson,  two  hundred  and  twelve  to  twenty-one  for 
McClellan  and  Pendleton,  meant  the  approval  of  Lin- 
coln’s views  and  acts  in  Reconstruction,  and  it  certainly 
behooved  the  President  to  exercise  some  caution  in  so 
interpreting  it,  especially  as  there  was  no  such  wide 
difference  in  the  popular  vote,  the  McClellan  electors 
having  received  1,835,985  votes  to  2,330,552  for  the 
Lincoln  electors.  There  is  no  question,  however,  that 
the  President  still  believed  in  the  correctness  of  his 
method  and  was  determined  to  pursue  the  course  upon 
which  he  had  entered. 

Neither  was  there  any  sign  manifested  that  Congress 
would  desist  from  pressing  its  views  of  its  own  powers 
in  the  matter.  Both  Houses  had  refused  to  ad-  no  change 

mit  membersfrom  the  reconstructed  “ States,”  Congress 
and  now  they  passed  a joint  resolution,  on  Presidential 
February  4th,  1865,  which  prohibited  the  election- 
counting  of  any  electoral  votes  for  President  and 
Vice-President  in  the  election  of  1864,  from  “States” 
which  had  passed  the  secession  ordinance.  Elections 
had  been  held  in  Louisiana  and  also  in  Tennessee,  and 
this  resolution  was  intended  to  prevent  the  counting 
of  the  votes  which  the  persons  chosen  electors  for 
Louisiana  and  Tennessee  should  send  in.  The  resolu- 
tion was  sent  to  the  President  for  his  signature.  He 


22 


RECONSTRUCTION 


hesitated  for  several  days,  but  approved  it  at  last  on  the 
day  that  Congress  counted  the  electoral  votes,  February 
8th.  In  doing  so,  however,  he  addressed  a message  to 
Congress  informing  the  two  Houses  that  he  had  signed 
it  out  of  deference  to  their  views,  and  saying  that  “ in 
his  own  view,  however,  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 
convened  under  the  twelfth  article  of  the  Constitution, 
have  complete  power  to  exclude  from  counting  all  elec- 
toral votes  deemed  by  them  to  be  illegal ; and  it  is  not 
competent  for  the  Executive  to  defeat  or  obstruct  that 
power  by  a veto,  as  would  be  the  case  if  his  action  were 
at  all  essential  in  the  matter.  He  disclaims  all  rights  of 
the  Executive  to  interfere  in  any  way  in  the  matter  of  can- 
vassing or  counting  electoral  votes,  and  he  also  disclaims 
that,  by  signing  said  resolution,  he  has  expressed  any 
opinion  on  the  recitals  of  the  preamble  or  any  judgment  of 
his  own  upon  the  subject  of  the  resolution/'’  The  recitals 
of  the  preamble  referred  to  read  thus:  “Whereas, 
the  inhabitants  and  local  authorities  of  the  States  of 
The  refusal  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
counttfeeiec0  ^eorgia>  Florida,  Alabama,  Mississippi, 
toraivotefrom  Louisiana,  Texas,  Arkansas  and  Tennessee 
which  had  rebelled  against  the  Government  of  the 
ce6stonthordii  United  States,  and  were  in  such  condition 
nance.  on  p;;e  (jay  0|  November,  1864,  that  no 

valid  election  for  electors  of  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  according  to  the  Constitu- 
tion and  Laws  thereof,  was  held  therein  on  said  day, 
etc.” 

Louisiana,  which  had  fulfilled  the  President’s  condi- 
tions of  reconstruction,  was  thus  included  in  this  list, 
and  also  Tennessee,  where  by  order  of  Governor  Andrew 
Johnson,  the  candidate  for  Vice-President  on  the  Lin- 
coln ticket,  an  election  of  electors  had  been  held. 
Tennessee  had  not,  at  the  time  of  the  counting  of  the 


president  Lincoln’s  views  and  acts  23 


electoral  vote,  completed  any  process  of  reconstruction. 
The  convention,  called  at  Governor  Johnson’s  instiga- 
tion to  meet  at  Nashville  for  the  purpose  of  nominating 
candidates  for  Presidential  electors,  had  called  a con- 
stitutional convention  to  meet  in  Nashville  ^ ^ 
on  December  19th,  following  the  Presidential  tion  in  Ten- 
election,  for  the  purpose  of  undertaking  the  neseee' 
work  of  reconstruction.  Hood’s  advance  upon  Nashville 
delayed  its  meeting,  however,  until  January  3d.  This 
convention  took  the  old  constitution  of  Tennessee  as  its 
starting-point  and  subjected  it  to  a pretty  thorough 
revision  in  the  direction  of  a “free  State  government.” 
It  also  prescribed  a rather  stiff  test  oath  for  all  persons 
offering  to  vote  upon  the  adoption  of  the  amendments, 
an  oath  which  not  only  promised  future  loyalty  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  such  as  Lincoln  had 
prescribed,  but  which  also  required  the  taker  of  it  to 
swear  that  he  was  an  active  friend  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  and  an  enemy  of  the  so-called  Con- 
federate States.  The  amended  constitution  had  not, 
however,  been  submitted  to  the  voters  at  the  date  when 
Congress  counted  the  electoral  vote,  that  is,  before  the 
8th  of  February,  1865,  and  of  course  no  “ State  ” gov- 
ernment had  been  elected  under  the  amended  consti- 
tution. The  vote  upon  the  constitution  occurred  on 
the  22d  of  February,  and  the  election  of  the  Governor 
and  the  members  of  the  Legislature  under  it  occurred 
on  March  4th. 

The  case  of  Tennessee  did  not  from  this  point  of 
view  appear  as  strong  as  that  of  Louisiana.  But  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Republicans  could  have  con- 
sistently rejected  the  vote  of  Tennessee  after  having 
nominated  and  elected  a citizen  of  Tennessee  as  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States.  It  is  certainly  implied 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  that  no  man  is 


24 


RECONSTRUCTION 


eligible  to  the  office  of  Vice-President  unless  he  be  at 
the  time  of  his  election  a citizen  of  a “ State  ” of  the 
Union.  The  Constitution  implies  that  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent shall  have  the  same  qualifications  as  the  President ; 
and  it  distinctly  says  that  in  giving  their  vote,  the 
electors  in  each  “ State  ” shall  vote  for  two  persons,  “ of 
whom  one  at  least  shall  not  be  an  inhabitant  of  the 
same  State  with  themselves.”  If  an  inhabitant  of  Ten- 
nessee could  be  lawfully  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States,  it  does  certainly  seem  implied  that  Tennessee 
was,  at  the  time,  a “State”  of  the  Union  in  regular 
standing. 

However  this  may  have  been,  the  President  was  cer- 
tainly correct  in  saying  that  Congress  was  vested  with 
full  power  over  the  count  of  the  electoral  vote,  and  that 
the  Executive  had  no  control  over  it  whatsoever.  It 
was  a bit  of  harmless  good  humor  that  he  signed  the 
resolution  as  a perfunctory  matter,  and  it  was  calculated 
to  improve  the  temper  of  the  somewhat  irritated  mem- 
bers of  Congress. 

Congress  was  not,  however,  formally  notified  of  the 
fact  that  he  had  signed  the  measure  until  after  the 
The  twenty-  counting  of  the  vote  had  been  finished,  and 
second  joint  the  two  Houses  met  the  exigency  by  the  en- 
actment of  what  was  known  as  “ the  twenty- 
second  joint  rule,”  according  to  which  the  consent  of 
both  Houses  was  required  to  count  the  electoral  vote 
from  any  “ State  ” or  any  body  or  place  professing  to 
be  a “ State.”  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  Vice-President, 
Mr.  Hamlin,  declared  that  he  had  in  his  possession  re- 
turns from  the  “ States  ” of  Louisiana  and  Tennessee, 
but  held  it  to  be  his  duty  not  to  present  them,  and  he 
did  not  present  them.  He  knew  that  the  President  had 
signed  the  joint  resolution,  although  Congress  had  not 
been  officially  notified  of  it,  and  he  acted  under  the  res- 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN’S  VIEWS  AND  ACTS  25 


olution  as  law.  The  joint  rule  would  have  required  the 
presentation  of  these  votes  to  the  joint  meeting  of  the 
two  Houses,  and  would  have  required  the  concurrence 
of  the  two  Houses,  acting  separately,  to  have  included 
them  in  the  count.  The  joint  rule  was,  therefore,  not 
applied  to  the  case  for  which  it  was  enacted,  but  it 
remained  unrepealed  for  more  than  ten  years,  and  then 
showed  itself  a sort  of  Nemesis  to  its  creators. 

Tennessee  pursued,  however,  the  course  of  recon- 
struction upon  which  she  had  set  out.  Her  test  oath,  as 
we  have  seen,  required  virtually  that  the  Reconstruc- 
basis  of  her  reorganization  should  be  the  nesseencontin"- 
men  who  had  remained  loyal  throughout  the  ued- 
rebellion.  It  differed  thus  from  Mr.  Lincoln’s  oath, 
which  rehabilitated  those  who  would  promise  future 
loyalty.  The  vote  in  favor  of  the  new  constitution, 
which  was  the  old  constitution  of  the  “ State  ” amended 
by  articles  abolishing  slavery,  nullifying  secession,  and 
repudiating  the  debt  created  in  aid  of  the  rebellion,  was 
more  than  twenty-five  thousand,  nearly  twenty  per 
centum  of  the  vote  for  Presidential  electors  in  1860. 
This  certainly  much  more  than  fulfilled  all  of  Mr. 
Lincoln’s  conditions. 

Governor  Johnson  issued  his  proclamation  on  Febru- 
ary 25th,  1865,  declaring  the  adoption  of  the  new  con- 
stitution, and  ordering  the  election  of  the  Governor 
and  legislative  members  under  it  for  March  4th.  W.  G. 
Brownlow  was  chosen  Governor.  The  newly  elected 
legislature  did  not  meet,  however,  until  April  2d, 
and  Mr.  Brownlow  was  not  inaugurated  as  civil  Gov- 
ernor until  April  7th.  As  Mr.  Johnson  was  inaug- 
urated Vice-President  on  March  4th,  he  civil  gov- 
had  been  obliged  to  lay  down  the  military  taM^hedla 
governorship  on  that  date,  in  fact,  a few  Tennessee, 
days  before,  and  Mr.  Brownlow  had  been  appointed 


26 


RECONSTRUCTION 


in  his  stead.  Upon  Brownlow’s  inauguration  as  civil 
Governor,  the  military  regime  in  Tennessee  was  for- 
mally ended.  Lincoln  acquiesced  certainly  in  this 
change. 

It  remained  now  for  Congress  to  show  its  attitude, 
when  the  Senators  and  Representatives  from  Tennessee 
should  present  themselves  for  admission  to  seats  in  the 
two  Houses.  As  this  could  not  happen  until  the  fol- 
lowing December,  the  history  of  this  point  must  be  de- 
ferred until  the  events  between  March  4th  and  December 
4th  are  related. 

The  experiences  of  the  year  1863  with  the  slavery 
problem  had  convinced  the  President  and  the  leaders  of 
Tbe  Thir-  the  Republican  party  in  Congress  that  aboli- 
menth'toietlhe  tion  must  be  effected  by  a constitutional 
of°  the 'united  amendment.  The  military  acts  of  the  Presi- 
states.  dent  jn  this  direction  were,  as  all  the  purely 

military  measures  of  the  Executive,  temporary,  and  with 
the  re-establishment  of  peace  would  cease  to  have  force  ; 
and  it  was  by  this  time  pretty  clear  that  but  few  of  the 
“ States  ” would  abolish  slavery  by  their  own  act.  Al- 
ready on  January  11,  1864,  had  the  proposition  for  a 
constitutional  amendment  abolishing  slavery  through- 
out the  length  and  breadth  of  the  United  States  been 
presented  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  John  B.  Henderson  of 
Missouri,  and  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  of 
that  body  for  consideration  and  report. 

The  language  of  the  first  article  of  Mr.  Henderson’s 
proposition  read  : “ Slavery  or  involuntary  servitude, 
except  as  a punishment  for  crime,  shall  not  exist  in  the 
United  States.”  When  it  came  back  from  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Trumbull,  it  was  called 
Article  XIII.,  and  read  : “ Sec.  1.  Neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a punishment  for  crime, 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN’S  VIEWS  AND  ACTS  27 


The  propo- 
s i t i o n of 
amendment  as 
it  came  from 
the  Judiciary 
Committee  of 
the  Senate. 


exist  in  the  United  States  or  any  place  subject  to  their 
jurisdiction.  Sec.  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  en- 
force this  article  by  appropriate  legislation.” 

It  will  be  advantageous  in  our  further  consideration 
of  this  article  to  recall  briefly  the  reasons  for  these 
divergencies.  The  language  used  by  the 
Judiciary  Committee  corresponds  almost 
exactly  with  the  wording  of  the  ordinance  of 
the  Northwest  Territory  of  1787  ; and  it  is 
entirely  evident  that  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee had  that  act  in  mind  when  it  reported  the  arti- 
cle. Mr.  Henderson’s  proposition  was  that  slavery  or 
involuntary  servitude  should  not  exist  in  the  United 
States.  He  well  understood  that  it  did  not  require  a 
constitutional  amendment  to  abolish  slavery  from  those 
parts  of  the  country  where  “ States”  had  not  been 
formed.  He  knew  that  Congress  could  do  that.  The 
Judiciary  Committee,  however,  did  not  think  it  wise  or 
necessary  to  “make  two  bites  of  a cherry.”  They  pre- 
ferred to  make  their  prohibition  apply  to  the  whole 
country.  They  knew  that  the  phrase  United  States  was 
capable  of  being  interpreted  to  mean  only  that  part  of 
the  country  where  “ States”  existed,  and  they  preferred 
and  intended  to  make  their  prohibition  of  slavery  extend 
to  the  whole  country.  From  abundant  caution  they 
used  the  words  United  States,  with  the  additional  words 
“ any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction,”  in  order  to 
cover  all  territory  over  which  the  flag  of  the  Union  should 
fly  in  sovereign  power. 

The  second  section,  giving  to  Congress  special  power 
to  enforce  this  article,  seems,  at  first,  unnecessary,  be- 
cause according  to  the  last  paragraph  of  Section  8, 
Article  I.,  of  the  Constitution,  Congress  is  vested  with 
the  authority  to  make  all  laws  necessary  and  proper  to 
carry  into  execution  all  the  powers  vested  by  the  Con- 


28 


RECONSTRUCTION 


stitution  in  any  department  or  officer  of  the  Government. 
This  abolition  of  slavery  was,  however,  a restriction  on 
the  “ States.”  It  laid  a new  limitation  upon  their 
powers,  and  hence  it  was  thought  that  Section  8 of 
Article  I.  might  not  apply  in  the  execution  of  such  a 
provision  against  the  “States.”  But  if  we  regard  the 
provision  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  rights  of  an  indi- 
vidual to  his  freedom  against  any  “State”  law  to  the 
contrary,  then  we  must  see  that  the  amendment  does 
invest  the  United  States  courts  with  the  power  to  im- 
pose the  restriction  in  behalf  of  the  individual  seeking 
deliverance  from  the  attempt  of  a “State”  to  enslave 
him  or  to  continue  his  enslavement.  And  once  the 
power  vested  in  the  courts  to  do  this  the  general  pro- 
vision of  Article  I.,  Section  8,  will  certainly  apply. 
The  resolution  offered  by  the  Judiciary  Committee 
passed  the  Senate  by  the  requisite  majority  on  the  8th 
of  April,  1864. 

During  this  same  period,  Mr.  William  Windom,  of 
Minnesota,  offered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  a 
resolution  upon  the  subject  in  the  identical  words  of  the 
The  House  Senate’s  resolution.  It  was  referred  to  the 
draft-  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House,  February 

15,  1864.  While  it  lay  in  the  room  of  the  Committee, 
Mr.  Stevens  offered  a substitute  for  it,  which  read : 
“ Slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a punish- 
ment for  crime,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted,  is  forever  prohibited  in  the  United  States 
and  all  its  Territories.”  This  is  another  bit  of  evi- 
dence for  the  proposition  that  what  was  meant  by  the 
words  “or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction” 
in  Mr.  Trumbull’s  resolution  was  all  parts  of  the 
country  not  enjoying  “State”  government  in  local 
matters. 

The  Senate  resolution  was  sent  into  the  House  on  the 


president  Lincoln’s  views  and  acts  29 


31st  of  May,  and  was  there  lost  on  June  15th,  hav- 
ing received  a large  majority,  indeed,  in  Rejection  of 
its  favor,  but  not  a two-thirds  majority.  d?aft  nTthe 

Foreseeing  the  failure  of  the  resolution  at  House- 
that  juncture,  Mr.  J.  M.  Ashley,  of  Ohio,  voted  against 
the  measure,  although  a stanch  friend  of  it.  His  purpose 
was  of  course  to  be  able  to  move,  at  some  future  and 
more  propitious  time,  a reconsideration  of  the  subject. 
He  did  not,  however,  feel  that  that  time  had  arrived 
until  after  the  election  and  the  military  victories  of 
the  autumn  of  1864  had  manifested  the  temper  of  the 
voters  on  the  question  of  abolition  and  demonstrated  the 
power  of  the  Union  to  carry  such  a measure  into  ex- 
ecution. On  the  31st  of  January,  1865,  Mr.  Ashley 
moved  a reconsideration  of  the  Senate  resolution  lost 
in  the  House  on  the  15th  of  the  preced-  Reconsider- 
ing June.  Reconsideration  was  immediately  senate’smea* 
voted,  and  the  Senate  resolution  was  then  Honsefandus 
carried  by  the  requisite  two-thirds  majority,  final  passage. 

The  proposed  amendment  was  then  sent  to  the  Presi- 
dent, who  signed  it,  February  1st,  1865.  Whereupon  the 
Senate  immediately  passed  another  resolution,  declaring 
that  it  was  through  an  inadvertency  that  the  measure 
had  been  sent  to  the  President  for  his  signature,  that 
asking  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  sign  a 
proposed  constitutional  amendment  was  an  error,  was 
without  precedent  in  the  practice  of  the  Government, 
and  that  the  President’s  approval  should  not  be  com- 
municated to  the  House.  A concurrent  resolution  was 
then  passed  by  the  two  Houses  authorizing  the  President 
to  submit  the  proposed  article  of  amendment  to  the 
“States”  for  ratification.  The  Secretary  of  State  im- 
mediately sent  it  to  the  legislatures  of  all  the  “ States  ” 
which  could  be  reached  by  him,  and  during  the  sum- 
mer and  autumn  to  the  legislatures  of  all  the  “ States 


30 


RECONSTRUCTION 


and  the  new  legislature  of  Tennessee  ratified  it  on  the 
5th  of  April,  1865,  that  is,  more  than  a week  before 
Lincoln’s  death. 

Such  was  the  condition  of  things  when  the  assassin’s 
bullet  ended  the  life  of  the  great  and  good  President 
and  brought  the  Vice-President,  Mr.  Johnson,  into  the 
office. 


CHAPTER  III 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON’S  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION 
AND  HIS  PROCEEDINGS  IN  REALIZATION  OF  IT 

The  Character  of  Mr.  Johnson— The  Radical  Nature  of  Johnson’s 
First  Views  on  Reconstruction — The  Retention  of  Lincoln’s 
Cabinet  by  Mr.  Johnson  and  the  Modification  of  Johnson’s 
Views  by  Mr.  Seward’s  Arguments — Johnson’s  Amnesty  Proc- 
lamation of  May  29th,  1865 — The  Excepted  Classes — The  Effect 
of  these  Exceptions — The  President’s  Plan — The  Realization  of 
it — The  Administering  of  the  Oath — Reconstruction  in  North 
Carolina — The  Identity  of  Johnson’s  Plan  with  that  of  Lincoln 
— Reconstruction  in  Mississippi — Reconstruction  in  Georgia — 
Reconstruction  in  Alabama,  South  Carolina  and  Florida — Re- 
construction in  Virginia — Reconstruction  in  Louisiana,  Arkan- 
sas and  Tennessee — The  Constitutional  Conventions  of  1865 — 
The  Form  of  the  Work  Done  in  these  Conventions,  and  its 
Substance — The  Erection  of  “ State  ” Governments  and  the 
Election  of  Members  of  Congress — The  Orders  of  the  Presi- 
dent Putting  the  Civil  Government  of  the  United  States  into 
Operation  Everywhere — The  President’s  First  Annual  Message. 

Mr.  Johnson  was  a man  who  rose  from  very  low  estate 
through  his  own  efforts.  He  was  a man  of  considerable 
intellectual  power  and  of  great  will  power. 

^ ^ The  charac- 

He  was  somewhat  vain  of  his  success  and  ter  of  m>. 
somewhat  piqued  by  the  social  neglect  which  JohnBOD- 
he  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  “ old  families.”  He 
was  intensely  loyal  to  the  Union,  and  could  regard  seces- 
sion and  rebellion  only  as  treason.  Having  suffered  so 
much  for  his  loyalty,  he  was  somewhat  moved  by  con- 
siderations of  revenge.  He  was  profoundly  stirred  by 

31 


32 


RECONSTRUCTION 


the  assassination  of  Lincoln,  and  apparently  believed  it 
to  have  been  planned  by  those  high  in  authority  in  the 
Confederacy  ; and  he  was  possessed  with  an  intense  desire 
to  re-establish  the  Union  on  an  enduring  foundation. 

With  such  a history  behind  him,  and  such  a disposition 
impelling  him,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  his  policy 
The  radical  in  regard  to  Reconstruction  should  have  been 
John  a on’°B  more  stringent  than  thatof  Mr.  Lincoln.  In 
FtecoMtruc"  it  was  feared,  even  by  the  more  radical 
ti°n.  Republicans,  such,  for  instance,  as  Mr.  AVade, 

that  he  would  be  bloody  minded  in  the  treatment  of 
the  rebel  chiefs.  He  had,  before  his  accession  to  the 
Presidency,  declared  so  often,  and  so  vehemently, 
that  “ traitors  should  be  arrested,  tried,  convicted  and 
hanged,”  that  most  men  were  expecting  the  strict  ap- 
plication of  the  criminal  law  to  the  Confederate  leaders. 

Mr.  Johnson  retained  Lincoln’s  Cabinet,  and  among 
them  the  conciliatory  and  persuasive  Seward,  who,  in 
The  reten-  about  six  weeks  from  the  night  of  the  as- 
coin’sCabinet  sassination,  at  which  time  he  himself  was 
Bon,MInd°the  seriously  wounded,  returned  to  his  work  in 
S0<JohiiBon’s  the  State  Department.  There  is  no  doubt 
views  by  Mr.  that  it  was  the  influence  of  Seward  which 

Seward’s  a r - 

guments.  modified  the  views  and  purposes  of  Mr. 
Johnson.  The  compliant  spirit  manifested  at  this  time 
by  the  Confederate  chiefs  helped  strongly  in  the  same 
direction.  By  the  1st  of  June,  Seward  had  won  John- 
son completely  for  his  plan  of  a rapid  and  forgiving 
reconstruction  by  the  Executive.  Congress  was  not  in 
session,  and  the  President  was  not  inclined  to  call  an 
extra  session.  The  late  rebel  chieftains  were  pressing 
for  the  political  rehabilitation  of  their  section,  and  the 
President  now  fully  believed  that  he  had  the  power  to 
proceed  with  the  problem  of  Reconstruction,  and  was 
inclined  to  do  so. 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  S PLAN 


33 


On  the  29th  of  May,  he  issued  his  proclamation  of 
amnesty  and  pardon  to  all  persons  who,  having  engaged 
in  rebellion,  had  failed  to  take  the  benefits  Johngon,g 
of  Mr.  Lincoln’s  proclamations  of  Decern-  Amnesty 
ber  8,  1863,  and  March  26,  1864.  To  all 
such  persons  Mr.  Johnson  offered  his  pardon  1865‘ 
upon  their  taking  an  oath  of  the  following  tenor  : “ I 
— do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  in  the  presence  of  Al- 
mighty God,  that  I will  henceforth  faithfully  support, 
protect,  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Union  of  the  States  thereunder,  and  that 
I will  in  like  manner  abide  by  and  faithfully  support  all 
laws  and  proclamations  which  have  been  made  during 
the  existing  rebellion  with  reference  to  the  emancipation 
of  slaves.  So  help  me  God.” 

He,  however,  excepted  the  following  classes  of  persons 
from  the  benefits  of  the  offer  : 1st.  Those  who  held  or 
had  held,  under  the  pretended  Confederate  eicept. 
Government,  civil  or  diplomatic  office  or  edclaB8eB- 
agency,  or  military  office  above  the  rank  of  colonel  in  the 
army  and  lieutenant  in  the  navy,  or  military  or  naval 
office  of  any  grade,  if  educated  by  the  United  States 
Government  in  the  Military  Academy  at  West  Point  or 
the  United  States  Naval  Academy ; and  all  those  who 
held,  or  had  held,  the  pretended  office  of  Governor  of 
a “ State  ” in  insurrection  against  the  United  States  ; 

2d.  Those  who  had  left  seats  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  or  judicial  stations  under  the  United 
States  to  aid  in  the  rebellion  against  the  United  States, 
and  those  who  had  resigned  or  tendered  resignations  of 
their  commissions  in  the  army  or  navy  of  the  United 
States  to  evade  duty  in  resisting  the  rebellion  ; 

3d.  Those  who  had,  in  any  way,  treated  persons 
found  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  in  any  capac- 
ity, otherwise  than  lawfully  as  prisoners  of  war ; 


34 


RECONSTRUCTION 


4th.  Those  who  had  been  engaged  in  destroying  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States  on  the  high  seas,  or 
upon  the  lakes  and  rivers  separating  the  British  Prov- 
inces from  the  United  States,  or  in  making  raids  from 
Canada  into  the  United  States  ; 

5th.  Those  who  were,  or  had  been,  absent  from  the 
United  States,  or  had  left  their  homes  within  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States,  and  passed  beyond  the  mili- 
tary lines  of  the  United  States  into  the  pretended  Con- 
federate States,  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  rebellion  ; 

6th.  Those  who,  at  the  time  they  might  seek  to  obtain 
the  benefits  of-  the  proclamation  by  taking  the  oath, 
were  prisoners  of  war,  or  under  civil  or  criminal  arrest, 
and  those  who  had  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
United  States  since  December  8,  1863,  and  had  failed  to 
keep  it ; 

And,  finally,  those  who  had  voluntarily  participated 
in  any  way  in  the  rebellion  and  were  the  owners  of  tax- 
able property  to  the  value  of  more  than  twenty  thou- 
sand dollars. 

These  exceptions  would  have  shut  out  almost  all  of 
the  leading  men  of  most  of  the  “States”  that  passed 
. secession  ordinances  from  the  benefits  of  the 
of  these  ex-  proclamation,  except  for  the  subsequent  pro- 
vision in  the  proclamation,  which  ordained 
that  special  application  might  be  made  to  the  President 
for  pardon  by  any  person  belonging  to  the  excepted 
classes,  and  held  out  the  promise  that  such  clemency 
would  be  as  liberally  extended  as  might  be  consistent 
with  the  facts  of  the  case  and  the  peace  and  dignity  of 
the  United  States. 

lPr6Bl* 

dent’s  plan  m Briefly,  the  President  proposed  to  pardon 
a sentence.  £pe  rebel  leaders,  upon  special  personal  ap- 
plication, as  an  act  of  high  executive  grace,  and  to  am- 
nesty every  one  else  in  a body ; and  upon  the  basis  of 


president  Johnson’s  plan 


35 


their  re-established  loyalty  to  use  the  old  electorate  of 
the  South  in  reconstruction.  How  he  succeeded  we  will 
now  proceed  to  relate. 

In  the  first  place,  the  machinery  for  administering 
the  cleansing  oath  was  made  very  simple  and  accessible. 
Any  commissioned  officer,  civil,  military  or  The 
naval,  of  the  United  States,  and  any  officer,  tlonoflt- 
civil  or  military,  of  a loyal  “ State  ” qualified  by  the 
laws  of  the  “ State  ” to  administer  oaths,  was  declared  by 
the  President,  through  his  Secretary  of  State,  Thg  admin 
to  be  competent  to  administer  this  oath  of  ietermg of  the 
loyalty,  a copy  of  which  should  be  given  to 
the  person  taking  it  as  his  certificate  of  restored  citizen- 
ship, and  another  copy  sent  to  the  State  Department 
at  Washington  to  be  there  deposited  and  kept  in  the 
archives  of  the  Government. 

In  the  second  place,  and  by  a second  proclamation, 
issued  on  the  same  day.  May  29th,  the  President  ap- 
pointed a Provisional  Governor  for  North 
A . Reconstruc- 

Carolina,  and  authorized  and  commanded  tjon^m Nortl1 

him  to  cause  the  election  of  delegates  to, 
and  their  assembly  in,  a constitutional  convention  of  the 
“ State  ” for  the  reconstruction  of  the  “ State,”  and  its 
restoration  to  its  constitutional  relations  to  the  United 
States.  The  electorate  to  be  employed  by  the  Provi- 
sional Governor  should  be  those  persons  who  were  quali- 
fied to  vote  by  the  laws  of  North  Carolina  in  force  im- 
mediately before  the  20th  of  May,  1861,  and  had  taken 
the  oath  prescribed  in  the  first  proclamation. 

This  second  proclamation  also  commanded  the  heads 
of  the  departments  of  the  United  States  Government 
to  put  the  laws  of  the  United  States  into  operation  in 
North  Carolina,  the  United  States  judges  to  open  the 
United  States  courts  and  proceed  to  business,  and  the 
military  officers  in  the  district  to  aid  the  Provisional 


36 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Governor  in  carrying  the  duties  assigned  to  him  into 
effect,  and  to  abstain  from  hindering,  impeding,  or  dis- 
couraging, in  any  manner,  the  organization  of  a “ State  ” 
government  as  authorized  by  the  proclamation. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Mr.  Johnson’s  plan  of  Recon- 
struction was  in  substance  the  same  as  that  of  Mr. 

The  identity  Lincoln.  It  rested  upon  the  theory  of  the 
pianJ^th8that  indestructibility  of  the  “States,”  their  per- 
of  Lincoln.  durance  as  “ States”  throughout  the  period 
of  rebellion,  the  commission  of  treason  and  rebellion  by 
combinations  of  private  persons,  the  right  of  the  Exec- 
utive to  withdraw  his  military  powers  and  put  his  civil 
powers  in  operation,  whenever,  in  his  judgment,  the 
circumstances  would  warrant  him  in  so  doing,  and  his 
authority  to  recognize  the  old  electorates  of  the  “ States  ” 
in  which  rebellion  had  existed  as  the  respective  constitu- 
ent bodies  of  the  “ States,”  upon  such  terms  and  under 
such  limitations  as  he  might  prescribe.  He  did  not  lay 
down  any  rule  as  to  the  numerical  proportion  which  the 
modified  electorates  should  bear  to  the  old,  in  order  to 
make  their  acts  legitimate,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  did  ; and  he 
did  declare  in  his  second  proclamation  that  the  North 
Carolina  convention,  when  convened,  or  the  legislature 
that  might  be  thereafter  assembled,  should  prescribe  the 
qualification  of  electors,  and  the  eligibility  of  persons 
to  hold  office  under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
“ State,”  which  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  do  in  his  proclama- 
tion. But  there  is  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Lincoln  would 
have  indorsed  this  proposition.  He  could  not  have 
avoided  it,  while  holding  the  theory  that  North  Caro- 
lina was  a “State”  simply  engaged  in  amending  its 
constitution,  the  theory  which  his  own  proclamation  ap- 
parently set  up.  In  a word  Johnson’s  policy  and  acts 
in  reconstructing  the  “ States  ” in  which  secession  ordi- 
nances had  been  passed,  and  rebellion  committed,  were 


president  Johnson’s  plan 


37 


but  a continuation  of  those  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  If  Lin- 
coln was  right  so  was  Johnson,  and  vice  versa. 

On  the  13th  of  June,  the  President  issued  a proclama- 
tion of  like  tenor  and  containing  similar  orders  for 
putting  the  laws  of  the  United  States  into  Reconstnic. 
operation,  and  for  putting  similar  machinery  t^nm^acssiB- 
in  motion  for  reconstruction,  in  Mississippi.  jj^Aiabama, 
He  appointed  William  L.  Sharkey  Provi-  iina  and 
sional  Governor  therein.  On  the  17th  of  Flonda' 
June,  similar  steps  were  taken  for  the  reconstruction 
of  Georgia,  with  James  Johnson  as  the  Provisional 
Governor  ; on  the  21st  of  June  for  the  reconstruction 
of  Alabama,  with  Lewis  E.  Parsons  as  Provisional  Gov- 
ernor ; on  the  30th  of  June  for  the  reconstruction  of 
South  Carolina,  with  Benjamin  F.  Perry  as  Provisional 
Governor  ; and  on  the  13th  of  July  for  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  Florida,  with  William  Marvin  as  Provisional 
Governor. 

Already  on  May  9th,  twenty  days  before  the  issue  of 
his  proclamation  of  amnesty,  the  President  had  issued 
an  executive  order  putting  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  in  operation  in  Virginia,  and  tion  in  Vir- 
guaranteeing  the  support  of  the  United  gmia' 

States  Government  to  Governor  Francis  H.  Pierpont  in 
all  lawful  measures  for  the  extension  and  administration 
of  the  “ State  ” government  throughout  the  geographical 
limits  of  Virginia.  This  meant,  of  course,  that  the 
United  States  Government  recognized  the  shadowy  loyal 
“State”  government,  which  had  kept  up  at  least  a 
show  of  existence  throughout  the  rebellion,  as  the  true 
“ State  ” government  of  Virginia,  and  that  Virginia  did 
not  need  reconstruction,  but  only  the  extension  of  the 
authority  of  this  government  throughout  her  territorial 
limits.  This  was,  also,  a simple  continuation  of  Mr. 
Lincoln’s  policy,  as  we  well  know. 


38 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Of  course  Mr.  Johnson  recognized  the  reconstruction 
of  Louisiana,  Arkansas  and  Tennessee  as  effected  by 
„ Mr.  Lincoln  ; so  that  by  mid-summer  of  1865 

Reconstrnc-  . J 

tioninLooisi-  the  reconstruction  of  all  the  “States”  which 

ana,  Arkansas  , . . . . 

and  Tennes-  had  passed  secession  ordinances,  except  only 
Texas,  had  been  completed,  or  had  been  put 
in  course  of  completion. 

During  the  summer,  autumn  and  early  winter  of  1865, 
the  Provisional  Governors  of  Mississippi,  Alabama,  South 
The  consti-  Carolina,  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  and 
ventionsof  Florida  ordered  elections  for  the  choosing  of 
1865-  delegates  to  constitutional  conventions,  upon 

the  basis  of  the  old  suffrage  laws  of  the  respective 
“States”  once  answering  to  these  names,  modified  by 
the  requirements  of  the  Presidential  pardon,  received 
after  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  ; and  these  elections 
were  held  and  these  conventions  assembled. 

These  bodies  chose  to  do  their  work  in  the  form  of 
amendments  to  the  old  constitutions  of  the  “ States,” 
whose  constituent  powers  they  assumed  to 
hold,  rather  than  in  the  form  of  new  con- 
stitutions. Before  the  meeting  of  Congress 
on  the  first  Monday  of  December,  they  had 
all  passed  ordinances,  either  repealing  the  secession 
ordinances  of  their  respective  “ States,”  or  pronouncing 
them  null  and  void  ; had  all  voted  amendments  to  the 
constitutions  of  their  respective  “States”  abolishing 
slavery  ; and  all,  except  Mississippi  and  South  Carolina, 
had  passed  ordinances  repudiating  the  debt  incurred  by 
their  respective  “States”  in  aid  of  rebellion  against  the 
United  States. 

Before  the  meeting  of  Congress  also,  elections  of  the 
members  of  the  respective  “ State  ” legislatures  and  of 
“State”  officers,  and  of  the  members  of  the  House  of 
Bepresentatives  in  Congress,  had  been  held  by  the  Pro- 


The  form  of 
the  work  done 
in  these  con- 
ventions, and 
its  substance. 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON’S  PLAN 


39 


visional  Governors,  under  the  direction  of  the  respective 
conventions.  And,  finally,  before  the  assembly  of  Con- 
gress, these  Legislatures  had,  with  the  ex-  The  erection 
ception  of  that  of  Florida,  met,  organized,  eLmentsga°n<i 
and  elected  United  States  Senators,  and,  with  Memt*erBOIlof 
the  exception  of  those  of  Florida  and  Miss-  congress, 
issippi,  had  adopted  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution.  The  legislature  of  Florida,  not  having  met 
and  organized,  had  not  at  that  date  been  able  to  consider 
the  Amendment.  It  met  on  December  18th  and  elected 
United  States  Senators,  and  adopted  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment  on  the  28th.  The  legislature  of  Mississippi, 
on  the  other  hand,  rejected  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
on  the  27th  of  November. 

During  the  same  period,  the  President  had  by  his 
several  proclamations  and  orders  declared  the  cessation 
of  armed  resistance,  the  restoration  of  inter-  The  order* 
course  throughout  the  country,  and  the  denthpiatfng 
raising  of  the  blockade  and  the  opening  of  eminent o?the 
the  ports,  and  had  put  the  different  branches  Stooperatton 
of  the  civil  Government  of  the  United  States  everywhere, 
into  operation  in  all  the  “States”  which  had  been  the 
scene  of  the  recent  rebellion.  He  had  not,  however, 
restored  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  in 
these  regions  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  he 
reserved  the  right  to  have  recourse  to  military  control 
therein  in  case  of  necessity.  The  Governors  of  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Mississippi  and  Florida  under  the 
Confederacy  had,  in  the  spring  of  1865,  assumed  to  sum- 
mon the  legislatures,  chosen  by  these  “ States  ” while 
members,  or  pretended  members,  of  the  Confederacy,  to 
meet  together  for  reconstruction  purposes.  The  Presi- 
dent had,  through  his  military  officials,  ignored  and  pre- 
vented all  such  movements.  No  farther  resistance  to  his 
plan  of  Reconstruction  had  been  attempted,  but  he  saw 


40 


RECONSTRUCTION 


plainly  that,  without  the  United  States  military  power 
to  sustain  the  new  “ State  ” governments,  there  might  be. 

This  was  the  situation  when  Congress  met  on  the  first 
Monday  of  December,  and  received  President  Johnson’s 
The  Presi  annua^  Message.  This  document  com 

dent’s  aret  an  tained  a disquisition . upon  the  political  sys- 
nual  Message-  tern  of  the  United  States,  as  “ an  indissoluble 
union  of  indestructible  States,”  with  the  natural  con- 
clusion that  by  attempting  secession,  the  “ States  ” im- 
paired, but  did  not  extinguish,  their  vitality,  suspended, 
but  did  not  destroy,  their  functions.  It  then  proceeded 
with  a narration  of  the  facts  above  stated,  in  which 
the  President  sought  to  establish,  upon  the  basis  of  his 
power  to  pardon  and  withdraw  military  rule,  and  to 
guarantee  a republican  form  of  government  to  every 
“ State,”  his  authority  to  reconstruct  “State”  govern- 
ment, or  at  any  rate  to  permit  the  pardoned  citizens  to 
do  so  under  his  direction. 

Finally,  this  paper  contained  the  official  notice  to  Con- 
gress that  the  President  had  admitted  the  reconstructed 
“ States  ’’—and  that  would  mean  all  that  had  passed  the 
secession  ordinance,  except  perhaps  Texas,  whose  con- 
vention did  not  assemble  until  March  of  1866 — to  par- 
ticipate in  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  The  President  concluded  his  narration  and 
argumentation  upon  this  all-important  subject  in  these 
words:  “The  amendment  to  the  Constitution  being 
adopted,  it  will  remain  for  the  States  whose  powers  have 
been  so  long  in  abeyance  to  resume  their  places  in  the 
two  branches  of  the  National  Legislature,  and  thereby 
complete  the  work  of  restoration.  Here  it  is  for  you, 
fellow  citizens  of  the  Senate,  and  for  you,  fellow  citi- 
zens of  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  judge,  each  of 
you  for  yourselves,  of  the  elections,  returns  and  quali- 
fications of  your  own  members.  ” 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  S PLAN 


41 


It  is  entirely  evident  from  all  this  that  the  Presi- 
dent denied  the  power  of  the  Houses  of  Congress,  either 
separately  or  jointly,  to  prevent  the  Senators  and  Rep- 
resentatives from  the  reconstructed  “States”  from 
taking  their  seats  upon  any  other  grounds  than  defects 
in  the  election  and  return,  or  in  the  personal  qualifica- 
tions, of  the  particular  persons  under  consideration. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION 

The  Stevens  Resolution  — Legislation  of  the  Reconstructed 
“ States  ” Concerning  the  Status  of  the  Freedmen,  and  the 
Freedmen’s  Bureau — Vagrancy,  Apprenticeship,  and  Civil 
Rights  in  the  Reconstructed  “ States  ” — The  View  Taken  of 
this  Legislation  by  the  Republicans — The  Ratification  of  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution — The  Demand  of 
the  Senators  and  Representatives-elect  from  the  Reconstructed 
“ States  ” to  be  Admitted  to  Seats  in  Congress — The  Joint 
Committee  of  the  Two  Houses  of  Congress  on  Reconstruction — 
Thaddeus  Stevens’s  Idea  of  Reconstruction — Mr.  Shellabar- 
ger’s  Theory  of  Reconstruction — Mr.  Sumner’s  Theory  of  Re- 
construction. 


So  soon  as  the  House  of  Representatives  had  elected 
its  Speaker,  Mr.  Colfax,  and  other  officers,  and  before 
t h e s t e reception  of  the  President’s  Message, 

yens  resoiu-  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens  presented  a resolution 
which  proposed  the  selection  of  a joint  com- 
mittee of  the  House  and  Senate  to  inquire  into  the  con- 
dition of  the  “ States,”  which  formed  the  so-called  Con- 
federate States,  and  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise, 
whether,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Committee,  these 
“ States,”  or  any  of  them,  were  entitled  to  be  repre- 
sented in  either  House  of  Congress,  and  which  provided 
that  “until  such  report  shall  have  been  made  and  finally 
acted  upon  by  Congress,  no  member  shall  be  received 
into  either  House  from  any  of  the  so-called  Confederate 

42 


* CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  43 

States/’  The  House  passed  this  resolution  by  an  over- 
whelming majority  ; and  then  adjourned  without  allow- 
ing a motion  by  Mr.  Niblack  of  Indiana,  to  the  effect 
that  “ pending  the  question  as  to  the  admission  of  per- 
sons claiming  to  have  been  elected  representatives  to  the 
present  Congress  from  the  States  lately  in  rebellion, 
such  persons  be  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  floor  of 
the  House,”  the  usual  privilege  accorded  contestants, 
to  come  to  a vote. 

The  view  of  the  House  was  thus  manifest  from  the 
start.  It  was  that  Reconstruction  could  not  be  effected 
by  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Govern-  The  view  of 
ment,  but  was  a problem  for  Congress,  and  Re^on^truc1 
that  this  was  a matter  entirely  separate  from  ^ effectedby 
the  power  of  each  House  to  judge  of  the  elec-  the  Executive, 
tions,  returns  and  qualifications  of  its  members,  a matter 
to  be  decided  by  the  whole  Congress  prior  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  question  of  the  elections,  returns,  and 
qualifications  of  the  members  of  each  House.  In  a 
word,  it  was  the  question  of  the  admission,  or  the  read- 
mission, of  “ States”  into  the  Union,  or  more  correctly 
the  question  of  the  establishment  or  re-establishment  of 
the  “ State  ” system  of  local  government  upon  territory 
of  the  United  States  under  the  exclusive  power  of  the 
central  Government. 

There  is  no  question  that  in  sound  political  science 
the  House  was  entirely  correct  in  its  theory,  and  that 
the  objection  of  the  Senate  to  that  part  of  the  Stevens 
resolution  which  provided  that  no  member  should  be 
received  into  either  House  from  any  of  the  so-called  Con- 
federate States  until  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Re- 
construction should  have  been  finally  acted  on  by  Con- 
gress, as  trenching  upon  the  exclusive  power  of  the 
Senate  to  judge  of  the  elections,  returns  and  qualifica- 
tions of  its  members,  rested  upon  a confounding  of  the 


44 


RECONSTRUCTION 


function  of  Congress  to  admit  “ States  ” into  the  Union 
with  the  power  of  each  House  to  judge  of  the  elections. 
Passage  of  returns  and  qualifications  of  those  claiming 
reaoiuUou'as'a  to  rePresent  “States”  or  constituencies  in 
concurrent  “States  ” about  whose  position  in  the  Union 
there  was  no  question.  The  Senate  finally 
swung  into  line,  however,  by  passing  this  part  of  the 
House  resolution  as  a concurrent  resolution  instead  of 
as  a joint  resolution. 

There  were  two  other  considerations  which  moved  the 
Republicans  in  Congress  to  assume  this  attitude  in  re- 
l e gisiation  Sar(^  to  Reconstruction.  One  was  the  legis- 
of  the  re-  lation  of  the  “States”  reconstructed  by  the 

constructed  . J 

“States”  con-  President  concerning  the  status  and  the 

status 1 of  the  rights  of  the  freedmen.  On  the  3d  of  March 
the  Freed-  preceding.  Congress  had  passed  an  act  organ- 
men  sBureau.  jzjng  a bureau  in  the  War  Department  for 
the  care  of  refugees  and  freedmen  in  the  districts  in  re- 
bellion or  in  the  territory  embraced  in  the  operations  of 
the  army.  This  bureau  was  officered  by  a chief  com- 
missioner and  assistant  commissioners  for  each  of  the 
“States”  declared  to  be  in  insurrection.  These  officers 
were  authorized  to  take  possession  of  the  abandoned 
lands  within  these  “ States,”  and  other  lands  belonging 
to  the  United  States,  and  parcel  them  out  to  the  loyal 
male  refugees  and  freedmen,  not  more  than  forty  acres 
to  each,  and  protect  them  in  the  use  and  enjoyment  of 
the  same  for  the  term  of  three  years.  They  were  also 
authorized  to  issue  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary 
of  War  provisions,  clothing  and  fuel  to  such  loyal  refu- 
gees and  freedmen  as  were  destitute. 

There  is  no  question  that  this  was  a most  humane 
measure.  It  would  have  been  a moral  outrage  for  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  have  taken  the 
slaves  away  from  the  support  and  protection  accorded 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  45 


them  by  their  masters,  and  to  have  thrown  them  upon 
their  own  resources  without  any  means  of  sustenance  dur- 
ing the  transition  into  the  new  status.  But  The  admin- 
there  is  also  no  question  that  this  measure  was  Freedmetfs 
so  administered  as  to  do  the  race  for  whose  Bureau- 
benefit  it  was  intended  almost  as  much  harm  as  good. 
When  the  Government  began  to  furnish  them  with  food, 
clothes,  fuel  and  shelter  gratis,  they,  like  the  children 
that  they  were,  conceived  of  this,  to  them,  very  agree- 
able state  of  things  as  something  that  was  to  last  for- 
ever, as  the  New  Jerusalem.  They  gathered  about  the 
depots  of  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  and  could  not  be  in- 
duced to  go  away  in  search  of  work  or  livelihood.  The 
belief  became  quite  general  that  the  Government  in- 
tended to  give  every  man  forty  acres  of  land  and  a mule, 
and  otherwise  to  support  him  permanently.  The  danger 
was  that  the  newly  emancipated  would  quit  work  alto- 
gether and  throw  themselves  entirely  upon  the  charity 
of  the  United  States  Government.  Many  did  do  so,  and 
formed  thus  a sort  of  privileged  class  throughout  the 
whole  South  under  the  special  protection  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States. 

When,  now,  the  newly  reorganized  “States”  came 
to  assume  jurisdiction  over  matters  concerning  the 
freedmen,  they  found  themselves  driven  to  vagrancy, 
some  legislation  to  prevent  the  whole  negro  an^cMrigh'i 
race  from  becoming  paupers  and  criminals.  ]Bnt  frh®  cr®c°n^ 
It  was  in  the  face  of  such  a situation  that  ‘‘States.’’ 
the  legislatures  of  these  “States”  passed  laws  concern- 
ing apprenticeship,  vagrancy  and  civil  rights,  which 
were  looked  upon  at  the  North  as  attempts  to  re-enslave 
the  newly  emancipated,  and  served  to  bring  the  new 
“State”  governments  at  the  South  into  deep  reproach. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  at  the  time  of 
the  passage  of  the  Stevens  resolution  by  the  House  of 


46 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Representatives,  only  two  of  Mr.  Johnson’s  reconstructed 
“ States  ” had  passed  any  laws  upon  these  subjects. 

Examina-  These  two  were  Mississippi  and  South  Caro- 
vagrancyacts!  ^na  > and  a close  examination  of  the  text 
etc-  of  these  enactments  will  hardly  justify  the 

interpretations  placed  upon  them  by  the  radical  Re- 
publicans. The  South  Carolina  Preliminary  Act  came 
first  in  the  order  of  time.  It  provided  that  “all  free 
negroes,  mulattoes,  and  mestizos,  all  freedwomen,  and 
all  descendants  through  either  sex  of  any  of  these  per- 
sons, shall  be  known  as  persons  of  color,  except  that 
every  such  descendant,  who  may  have  of  Caucasian  blood 
seven-eighths,  or  more,  shall  be  deemed  a white  person  ; 
that  the  statutes  and  regulations  concerning  slaves  are 
now  inapplicable  to  persons  of  color  ; and  although  such 
persons  are  not  entitled  to  social  or  political  equality 
with  white  persons,  they  shall  have  the  right  to  acquire, 
own,  and  dispose  of  property,  to  make  contracts,  to  en- 
joy the  fruits  of  their  labor,  to  sue  and  be  sued,  and  to 
receive  protection  under  the  law  in  their  persons  and 
property  ” ; and  “ that  all  rights  and  remedies  respect- 
ing persons  or  property,  and  all  duties  and  liabilities 
under  laws  civil  and  criminal,  which  apply  to  white 
persons,  are  extended  to  persons  of  color,  subject  to  the 
modifications  made  by  this  act  and  the  other  acts  herein- 
before mentioned.” 

The  acts  to  which  this  one  was  preliminary  were  not 
passed  until  the  latter  half  of  December,  and  could  not 
have  served,  except  by  prevision,  as  grounds  for  the 
Stevens  resolution.  Moreover  there  was  little  in  this  Act 
which  was  really  calculated  to  arouse  any  pronounced 
hostility  at  the  North.  It  evidently  recognized  the 
emancipation  of  the  former  slaves,  and  the  prohibition 
of  future  slavery,  as  fixed  facts,  and  provided  for  sub- 
stantial equality  in  civil  rights  between  persons  of  color 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  47 

and  white  persons.  The  discriminations  which  it  re- 
ferred to,  rather  than  made,  were  those  of  a social  and 
political  nature,  matters  which  to  that  time  had  been 
controlled,  if  controlled  at  all,  wholly  by  the  “ States,” 
except  of  course  in  those  parts  of  the  country  in  which 
“ States  ” had  not  been  erected. 

The  Mississippi  acts  were  all  passed  in  November. 
They  were  the  acts  which  were  before  the  view  of  Con- 
gress and  the  country  in  the  beginning  of  December, 
1865,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  South  ^ Miseis- 
Carolina  Preliminary  Act  just  commented  BiPPiActB- 
on,  the  only  ones.  They  require,  therefore,  a somewhat 
fuller  treatment.  They  consist  of  “An  Act  to  regulate 
the  relation  of  master  and  apprentice  relative  to  Freed- 
men,  Free  Negroes,  and  Mulattoes,  passed  November 
22,  1865”  ; the  “ Vagrant  Act  of  November  24,  1865  ” ; 
an  “Act  to  Confer  Civil  Rights  on  Freedmen  and 
for  other  purposes,”  passed  November  25,  1865  ; a 
supplementary  Act  to  this,  passed  November  29,  1865  ; 
and  another  supplementary  Act,  passed  December  2, 
1865. 

The  first  Act  provided  that  freedmen,  free  negroes, 
and  mulattoes  under  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  being 
orphans,  or  the  children  of  parents  who  could  not,  or 
would  not,  support  them,  should  be  apprenticed  by  the 
clerk  of  the  Probate  court  in  the  county  where  found 
to  competent  and  suitable  persons,  and  on  such  terms 
as  the  court  should  direct ; under  the  restrictions,  that 
the  former  owner  of  the  minor  should  be  selected  by  the 
court  as  the  master  or  mistress  if,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  court,  he  or  she  were  competent  and  suitable  ; that 
the  terms  fixed  by  the  court  should  have  the  interest 
of  the  minor  particularly  in  view  ; and  that  the  appren- 
tice should  be  bound  by  indenture,  to  run,  in  the  case 
; of  males,  until  the  completion  of  the  twenty-first  year, 


48 


RECONSTRUCTION 


and,  in  the  case  of  females,  until  the  completion  of  the 
eighteenth  year. 

This  Act  further  provided  that  in  the  management 
and  control  of  apprentices,  the  master  or  mistress  should 
“ have  power  to  inflict  such  moderate  corporal  chas- 
tisement as  a father  or  guardian  is  allowed  to  inflict  on 
his  or  her  child  or  ward  at  common  law,”  but  that  in 
no  case  should  “ cruel  or  inhuman  punishment  be  in- 
flicted.” 

It  furthermore  provided,  that  in  case  of  desertion  by 
the  apprentice,  he  might  be  apprehended  and  brought 
before  a justice  of  the  peace,  who  might  remand  him 
to  his  master  or  mistress,  and  might,  on  the  refusal  of 
the  apprentice  to  return,  commit  him  to  jail,  on  fail- 
ure to  give  bond,  until  the  next  term  of  the  County 
court,  which  court  should  inquire  into  the  matter,  and 
determine  whether  the  apprentice  had  left  the  service 
to  which  he  was  bound  without  good  cause  or  not,  and 
should,  in  the  one  case,  compel  the  return  to  service 
by  ordering  the  infliction  of  the  necessary  penalties,  and 
in  the  other,  should  order  the  discharge  of  the  appren- 
tice, and  enter  “judgment  against  the  master  or  mis- 
tress for  not  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  the  apprentice.” 

The  second  Act  provided,  that  “ all  free  negroes  and 
freedmen  in  the  State,  over  the  age  of  eighteen  years, 
found  on  the  second  Monday  in  January,  1866,  or 
thereafter,  with  no  lawful  employment  or  business,  or 
found  unlawfully  assembling  themselves  together,  either 
in  the  day  or  night  time,  and  all  white  persons  so  as- 
sembling with  freedmen,  free  negroes,  or  mulattoes,  or 
usually  associating  with  freedmen,  free  negroes,  or  mu- 
lattoes on  terms  of  equality,  or  living  in  adultery  or  for- 
nication with  a freedwoman,  free  negro  or  mulatto,  shall 
be  deemed  vagrants,  and  on  conviction  thereof,  shall  be 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  49 

fined  in  the  sum  of  not  exceeding,  in  the  case  of  a 
freedman,  free  negro  or  mulatto,  fifty  dollars,  and  in 
the  case  of  a white  man,  two  hundred  dollars,  and  im- 
prisoned, at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  the  free  negro 
not  exceeding  ten  days,  and  the  white  man  not  exceed- 
ing six  months.” 

It  further  provided,  that  in  case  the  freedman,  free 
negro  or  mulatto  should  not  pay  the  fine  within  five  days 
from  the  time  of  its  infliction,  the  sheriff  of  the  proper 
county  should  hire  him  or  her  out  to  any  person  who 
would  for  the  shortest  period  of  service  pay  the  fine  and 
all  costs,  giving  the  preference,  however,  to  the  employer 
of  the  freedman,  negro  or  mulatto,  if  there  should  be 
any,  and,  if  no  person  would  hire  the  same,  should  hold 
him  or  her  to  be  dealt  with  as  a pauper.  It  also  pro- 
vided that  the  freedman,  free  negro,  or  mulatto  refusing 
or  failing  to  pay  a tax  should  be  dealt  with  by  the 
sheriff  in  the  same  manner. 

And  it  provided,  finally,  that  the  same  duties  and  lia- 
bilities existing  among  white  persons  in  the  “ State  ” to 
support  indigent  whites  should  attach  to  freedmen,  free 
negroes  and  mulattoes  in  regard  to  the  support  of  col- 
ored paupers,  and  that  in  order  to  carry  out  the  same 
a poll  tax,  not  exceeding  one  dollar  a head,  should  be 
levied  on  every  freedman,  free  negro,  and  mulatto,  be- 
tween the  ages  of  eighteen  and  sixty  years,  and  should 
be  collected  and  paid  into  the  hands  of  the  treasurers 
of  the  counties  to  be  used  in  the  support  of  colored 
paupers. 

The  third  Act  provided,  that  freedmen,  free  negroes 
and  mulattoes  might  acquire,  hold,  and  dispose  of,  per- 
sonal property  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the  same  extent 
as  white  persons,  and  might  sue  and  be  sued  in  all  the 
courts  of  the  “State”  as  white  persons,  but  that  they 
should  not  rent  or  lease  lands  or  tenements  except  in  in- 


50 


RECONSTRUCTION 


eorporated  towns  or  cities,  and  under  the  control  of  the 
corporate  authorities. 

It  provided,  further,  for  the  intermarriage  of  freed- 
men,  free  negroes  and  mulattoes,  and  for  the  legaliza- 
tion of  all  previous  and  existing  cohabitations  between 
them,  and  the  legitimation  of  the  issue  therefrom  ; but 
it  forbade  intermarriage  between  them  and  white  per- 
sons, under  penalty  of  life  imprisonment,  and  it  defined 
freedmen,  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  as  comprehend- 
ing all  of  pure  negro  blood,  and  all  descended  from 
negroes  to  the  third  generation  inclusive,  although  one 
parent  in  each  generation  should  have  been  white. 

It  provided,  further,  that  freedmen,  free  negroes  and 
mulattoes  should  be  competent  as  witnesses  in  all  civil 
cases,  in  which  they  themselves  or  other  freedmen,  free 
negroes  and  mulattoes  were  parties  or  a party  to  the 
suit,  and  in  criminal  cases  where  the  crime  charged  was 
alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  a white  person  or 
persons  upon  or  against  the  person  or  property  of  a 
freedman,  free  negro,  or  mulatto. 

It  provided,  further,  that  every  freedman,  free  negro 
and  mulatto  should  have  a lawful  home  and  employment, 
and  should  have  written  evidence  thereof  in  the  form  of 
a license  from  the  police  authorities  to  do  irregular  or 
job  work,  or  in  the  form  of  a written  contract  for  labor. 
It  required  that  all  contracts  made  with  freedmen,  free 
negroes  and  mulattoes  for  labor  for  a longer  period  than 
one  month  should  be  in  writing,  a copy  of  which  should 
be  furnished  to  each  party,  and  that  if  the  laborer 
should  quit  the  service  of  the  employer  before  the  ex- 
piration of  the  term  fixed  in  the  contract,  he  should  for- 
feit his  wages  for  that  year  up  to  the  time  of  quitting. 

It  provided,  further,  for  the  arrest  of  any  freedman, 
free  negro,  or  mulatto  quitting  the  service  of  an  em- 
ployer, and  for  the  determination  of  the  question  whether 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  51 

the  quitting  was  for  good  cause  or  not,  and  for  the  dis- 
position to  be  made  of  the  deserter. 

It  provided,  further,  that  enticing  or  persuading  freed- 
men,  free  negroes  or  mulattoes  to  desert  from  their  legal 
employment,  or  employing  deserters  from  contract  labor 
knowingly,  or  giving  or  selling  them  food,  raiment  or 
other  thing  knowingly,  should  be  a misdemeanor  punish- 
able by  fine,  or  by  imprisonment  in  case  the  fine  should 
not  be  paid. 

It  provided,  further,  that  no  freedman,  free  negro  or 
mulatto,  unless  in  the  military  service  of  the  United 
States,  or  licensed  thereto  by  the  police  authorities, 
should  keep  or  carry  arms,  ammunition  or  murderous 
weapons,  and  that  every  civil  and  military  officer  should 
arrest  any  such  person  found  in  possession  of  such  ar- 
ticles, and  commit  him  for  trial. 

It  provided,  further,  that  “any  freedman,  free  negro, 
or  mulatto  committing  riots,  affrays,  trespasses,  mali- 
cious mischief  and  cruel  treatment  to  animals,  seditious 
speeches,  insulting  gestures,  language  or  acts,  or  assaults 
on  any  person,  disturbance  of  the  peace,  or  exercising 
the  functions  of  a minister  of  the  gospel  without  a 
license  from  some  regularly  organized  church,  or  selling 
spirituous  or  intoxicating  liquors,  or  committing  any 
other  misdemeanor,”  should  be  fined  or  imprisoned,  and, 
upon  failure  to  pay  the  fine  in  five  days’  time  after  con- 
viction, should  be  publicly  hired  out  to  the  person  who 
would  pay  the  fine  and  costs  for  the  shortest  term  of 
labor  from  the  convict. 

And  it  provided,  finally,  that  “all  the  penal  and 
criminal  laws  now  in  force  in  this  State,  defining  of- 
fences, and  prescribing  the  mode  of  punishment  for 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  committed  by  slaves,  free  ne- 
groes or  mulattoes,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  re-en- 
acted, and  declared  to  be  in  full  force  and  effect,  against 


52 


RECONSTRUCTION 


freedmen,  free  negroes  and  mulattoes,  except  so  far  as 
the  mode  and  manner  of  trial  and  punishment  have 
been  changed  or  altered  by  law.” 

This  is  a fair  sample  of  the  legislation  subsequently 
passed  by  all  the  “ States  ” reconstructed  under  President 
Johnson’s  plan.  In  fact,  in  the  legislatures  of  several 
of  them,  bills  containing  substantially  these  provisions 
were  under  consideration  when  Congress  met,  and  it 

The  MiesiB-  was  suPPose  that  they  would  be  en- 

eippi  legisia-  acted.  Congress  had  thus  in  the  first  week 

tiou  & fair  ^ 

sample  of  the  of  December,  1865,  substantially  before  it 
legislat?on  i n what  the  reconstructed  “States”  proposed 
ot  er  states.  jn  reference  to  the  status  and  rights  of 

the  former  slaves,  and  in  reference  to  the  relations  be- 
tween the  negro  and  the  white  man  in  the  future. 

As  yet,  we  must  remember,  the  Thirteenth  Amend- 
ment had  not  been  proclaimed  as  adopted,  in  fact  had 
not  been  adopted,  on  the  basis  of  the  calculations  of  Mr. 
Seward,  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  officer  who  alone 
could  proclaim  adoption  ; and  the  abolition  of  slavery 
rested  upon  the  military  power  of  the  President,  and 
on  the  acts  of  the  “States”  themselves,  the  first  of 
which  is  temporary  as  to  its  effects,  and  the  second  of 
which  might  be  reversed  by  the  “ States  ” at  pleasure. 

The  Northern  Republicans  professed  to  see  in  this 
new  legislation  at  the  South  the  virtual  re-enslavement 
. of  the  negroes.  This  was  an  extreme  view 
taken  of  this  of  it,  although  it  certainly  did  not  give  the 
the  Repubif-  negro  equal  civil  right  with  the  white  man, 
or  anything  approaching  that,  to  say  nothing 
of  failing  to  offer  him  any  prospects  of  ever  partici- 
pating in  political  functions.  Of  course  it  would  be 
an  abstract  assumption  to  say  that  the  negro  ought,  at 
the  moment  of  his  emancipation,  to  have  had  equal  civil 
right  with  the  white  man.  Civilized  man  can  be  safely 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  53 

intrusted  with  a much  larger  civil  liberty  than  the  bar- 
barian or  the  semi-barbarian.  There  is  no  question  also 
that  much  severer  penalties  for  the  commission  of  the 
same  crime  are  necessary  among  a barbarous  race  or 
class  than  among  a civilized  race  or  class.  From  these 
points  of  view  this  Mississippi  legislation  does  not  ap- 
pear as  far  from  what  was  natural  and  even  necessary  as 
Mr.  Stevens  and  his  followers  made  it  out.  The  law  of 
apprenticeship  was  not  severe,  and,  if  justly  Thi8]eglB]a 
and  sincerely  executed,  it  would  probably  tion  from  the 
have  been  beneficial  to  the  young  negroes,  of  natural  jus- 
deprived  of  the  care  given  them  up  to  that  tice' 
time  by  master  or  mistress,  and  now  thrown  upon 
themselves  without  a cent  of  money  or  a particle  of 
property,  most  of  them  knowing  no  parent  except  a 
mother  as  poor  as  themselves,  and  entirely  unacquainted 
with  the  new  conditions  of  life  now  confronting  them. 

The  law  of  vagrancy  was  severer.  But  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  a reasonable  execution  of  that  law  had  as  much 
help  as  harm  in  it  for  the  former  slave.  It  would  have 
preserved  him  against  idleness,  drunkenness,  and  thiev- 
ery, although  it  did  curtail  largely  his  liberty  of  action. 
It  was,  undeniably,  the  third  act,  which  came  so  near 
to  the  re-enactment  of  the  old  slave  code  in  regard  to 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  committed  by  negroes,  that 
gave  the  greatest  offence.  Almost  every  act,  word,  or 
gesture  of  the  negro,  not  consonant  with  good  taste  and 
good  manners,  as  well  as  good  morals,  was  made  a 
crime  or  misdemeanor,  for  which  he  could  first  be  fined 
by  the  magistrates,  and  then  consigned  to  a condition 
almost  of  slavery  for  an  indefinite  time,  if  he  could  not 
pay  the  fine.  There  is  no  question  that  the  “ States  ” 
of  the  Union  had  at  that  moment  the  power  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  do  these  things. 
At  that  time  the  determination  of  the  criminal  law,  both 


54 


RECONSTRUCTION 


as  to  the  definition  of  crime,  the  fixing  of  penalties, 
and  the  fashioning  of  procedure,  was  almost  entirely 
a function  of  the  “ States,”  and  there  was  no  provision 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  re- 
quired the  “ States  ” to  treat  their  own  inhabitants  with 
equality  in  regard  to  their  civil  rights  and  obligations. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  not  at  all  surprising 
that  the  Republicans  of  the  North  strongly  felt  that  the 
freedom  of  the  negro  had  not  yet  been  sufficiently  guar- 
anteed to  render  the  acknowledgment  of  the  resumption 
of  “ State  ’’-powers  by  the  communities  so  lately  in  re- 
bellion against  the  United  States  for  the  upholding  of 
negro  slavery  safe  and  wise. 

It  was  certainly  natural,  and  it  was  just  and  right, 
that  the  party  in  power  in  Congress  should  have  con- 

„ sidered  it  their  duty  to  so  amend  the  Consti- 

Correctness  . . J 

of  the  Repub-  tution  of  the  United  States,  before  according 
bean  position.  (( ”.p0wers  to  the  communities  lately  in 

rebellion,  as  to  reap  the  just  fruits  of  their  triumph  over 
secession  and  slavery.  It  was  certainly  their  duty  to  the 
country  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  Thirteenth  Amend- 
ment, and  any  further  amendment,  necessary  to  accom- 
plish this  result,  before  putting  the  recently  rebellious 
communities  in  a position  to  defeat  the  same.  And  it  is 
certainly  not  strange  that  the  Republicans  should  have 
feared  that  the  Democrats  of  the  North  in  Congress 
would  soon  be  found  fraternizing  with  the  Senators  and 
Representatives  from  the  reconstructed  “ States,”  and 
that  it  was  their  duty  to  secure  “ perpetual  ascendancy 
to  the  party  of  the  Union,”  before  admitting  the  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives  from  these  “ States”  to  partici- 
pation in  public  power.  Properly  interpreted  this  only 
meant  that  loyal  men  must  govern  the  country.  But  it 
did  not  follow  that  only  Republicans  were  loyal  men, 
and  that  the  loyal  Democrats  of  the  North  would  follow 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  55 

the  recently  disloyal  Democrats  of  the  South  in  legis- 
lating upon  the  issues  of  the  war.  Republicans  were 
likely  to  commit  this  fallacy  in  their  reasoning.  Many 
of  them  did  commit  it.  And  the  result  of  it  was  to  in- 
tensify partisanship  at  the  expense  of  statesmanship. 

Just  two  weeks  after  the  passage  of  the  Stevens  reso- 
lution by  the  House  of  Representatives,  Mr.  Seward 
announced  the  adoption  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  Theratiflca- 
making  this  announcement,  he  declared  that  Thirteenth 
there  were  thirty-six  “ States  ” in  the  Union,  ^^“consti- 
and  that  the  legislatures  of  twenty-seven  tution- 
“ States,”  just  three-fourths,  the  necessary  number,  had 
voted  its  adoption ; and  among  those  voting  to  adopt, 
he  counted  the  legislatures  of  Virginia,  Louisiana,  Ar- 
kansas, Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia  and  Alabama. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  had  he  counted 
none  of  the  “ States  ” that  had  passed  secession  ordi- 
nances, either  in  the  whole  number,  or  in  the  three- 
quarters  necessary  to  adopt,  the  Amendment  would  in 
that  case  also  have  been  adopted.  There  would  have 
been,  in  that  case,  twenty-five  “ States  ” in  the  Union,  and 
of  these  nineteen  had  adopted  the  Amendment.  And 
if  any  controversy  had  arisen  over  the  use  of  fractions 
in  making  nineteen  three-fourths  of  twenty-five,  this 
would  have  been  quickly  overcome  by  the  fact  that  the 
legislatures  of  four  more  of  the  loyal  “States  ” adopted 
the  Amendment  soon  after  Mr.  Seward’s  declaration, 
making  twenty-three  out  of  twenty-five.  It  will  not,  of 
course,  be  disputed  that,  if  the  “States”  that  passed 
secession  ordinances  should  have  been  counted  in  arriv- 
ing at  the  whole  number  of  “ States  ” in  the  Union,  those 
of  them  adopting  the  Amendment  should  also  have  been 
counted  in  making  out  the  three-fourths  majority  neces- 


56 


RECONSTRUCTION 


sary  to  adoption,  and  that  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
should  have  been  excluded  in  arriving  at  the  whole 
number,  they  should  also  have  been  excluded  in  making 
up  the  three-fourths  majority.  In  other  words,  it  does 
not  matter  from  which  point  of  view  we  regard  the  sub- 
ject, the  Amendment  was  regularly  and  lawfully  adopted. 
It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  Mr.  Seward  followed 
in  this  most  solemn  procedure,  the  amending  of  the 
Constitution,  the  Presidential  plan  of  Reconstruction, 
and  gave  great  encouragement  to  the  Senators-  and  Rep- 
resentatives-elect  from  these  reconstructed  “ States  ” to 
expect  that  they  would  have  the  aid  and  influence  botli 
of  the  Democrats  in  Congress,  and  of  the  Administra- 
tion, in  securing  their  seats.  v 

They  had  gone  to  Washington  and,  bearing  themselves 
confidently  from  the  first,  they  now  became  defiant  in 
The  demand  demanding  their  rights.  Many  of  them  were 
t>or8-tandSRepi  men  who,  less  than  twelve  months  before,  had 
eiectefromVthe  been  in  arms  against  the  United  States,  and 
-states” tube  one  them  was  the  person  who  was  the 
admitted  to  Vice-President  of  the  Confederacy  at  the 
gress.  moment  of  its  downfall,  Mr.  Alexander  H. 

Stephens.  Such  an  attitude  on  his  part  and  their  part 
roused  again  great  bitterness  of  feeling  among  the  Re- 
publicans, many  of  whom  conscientiously  thought  that 
the  real  deserts  of  such  persons  were  the  penalties  of 
treason.  Moreover,  the  legislatures  of  some  of  the  other 
“ States  ” reconstructed  under  the  President’s  plan  en- 
acted, during  December,  January  and  February,  meas- 
ures concerning  the  status  and  rights  of  the  emancipated 
slaves  similar  to  those  passed  by  the  legislature  of  Mis- 
sissippi, and  in  some  respects  even  more  illiberal  than 
those  passed  by  that  body  ; and  it  was  evident  that  all 
of  them  would  finally  stand  upon  the  same  general 
ground  in  regard  to  this  subject. 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  57 

This  was  the  situation  in  the  last  week  of  February, 
1866,  when  the  Senate  passed  a resolution,  concurrent 
with  the  Stevens  resolution  in  the  House,  denying  seats 
to  any  of  the  claimants  from  the  “ States  ” lately  in 
insurrection  until  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee  on 
Reconstruction  should  be  made  and  finally  acted  upon. 
Four  of  the  Republican  Senators,  Messrs.  Cowan,  Doo- 
little, Dixon  and  Norton  went  against  their  party  as- 
sociates in  this  question,  but  there  was  still  a two-thirds 
majority  in  both  Houses  resolute  and  resolved  to  com- 
bat the  Presidential  plan  of  Reconstruction  and  to 
construct  and  enforce  a Congressional  plan. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  the  Senate  had  concurred 
with  the  House  in  regard  to  that  part  of  the  Stevens 
resolution  which  provided  for  the  appoint-  The  Joint 
ment  of  a Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruc-  th°Two  houses 
tion,  at  the  time  it  was  passed  by  the  House.  onCRegcon- 
The  members  of  the  Committee  were  chosen  8tIIlction- 
soon  after  the  passage  of  this  part  of  the  Stevens  res- 
olution by  the  Senate.  They  were,  from  the  Senate, 
Messrs.  Fessenden,  Grimes,  Harris,  Howard,  Johnson 
and  Williams,  all  Republicans  except  Mr.  Reverdy  John- 
son of  Maryland,  and  from  the  House,  Messrs.  Bing- 
ham, Blow,  Boutwell,  Conkling,  Grider,  Morrill,  Rogers, 
Stevens  and  Washburne,  all  Republicans  except  Grider 
of  Kentucky  and  Rogers  of  New  Jersey.  The  Repub- 
licans had  given  themselves  a larger  representation  on 
the  Committee  than  their  numerical  relation  to  the 
Democrats  warranted,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  the  report  of  the  majority  would  have  been  in  any 
respect  different,  if  that  relation  had  been  more  strictly 
observed. 

This  Committee  sat  for  about  six  months  before 
making  its  final  report.  During  this  period,  however, 
several  propositions  issued  from  it,  and  two  great 


58 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  activity 
f Congress  in 
the  i n t e ri 
between  t 
appointm  e n t 
of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Re- 
construct i o n 
and  the  Re- 

8ort  of  the 
ommittee. 


measures  of  statute  law  were  passed  by  Congress,  all 
of  which  must  be  more  nearly  considered  in  order  to 
keep  the  thread  of  the  narrative  of  Recon- 
struction.  Moreover  the  debate  upon  the 
between  the  subject  of  Reconstruction  was  at  the  same 
time  in  progress  and  the  view  of  the  sub- 
ject held  by  the  leading  Republicans  was 
becoming  more  clear  and  fixed. 

Mr.  Stevens  opened  this  debate  in  the 
House  on  the  18th  of  December  (1865).  In  a powerful 
speech,  he  developed  anew  his  doctrine  that  the  terri- 
Thaddeus  tory  once  covered  by  the  “States,”  which 
onRecoMtruc-  bad  seceded  from  the  Union,  was  nothing 
tion-  now  but  a conquered  district,  whose  future 

condition  depended  upon  the  will  of  the  conqueror.  If 
“ States  ” should  ever  be  erected  there  again,  it  must  be 
accomplished,  he  contended,  by  virtue  of  that  provision 
in  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  “ new  States 
may  be  admitted  by  Congress  into  this  Union.”  This 
theory  involved  the  admission  that  secession  had  been 
temporarily  successful.  This  Mr.  Stevens  frankly  ac- 
knowledged. He  said  : “ Unless  the  law  of  nations  is 
a dead  letter,  the  late  war  between  the  two  acknowl- 
edged belligerents  severed  their  original  contracts,  and 
broke  all  the  ties  that  bound  them  together.” 

This  was  the  extreme  doctrine  on  the  one  side.  It 
was  in  blunt  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  upon  which 
contra  die-  the  Administration  was  acting,  the  doctrine 
Stevens’sview  that  the  attempt  at  secession  was  entirely 
of  the  Admin^  abortive,  and  that  the  “States”  where  it 
istration.  was  attempted  were  still  in  the  Union  as 
“ States ,”  and  had  never  been  anywhere  else  or  any- 
thing else,  in  fact  could  not  be  ; that  the  rebellion  was 
the  work  of  private  individuals  combined  as  truly  against 
the  real  “ States  ” in  which  it  existed  as  against  the 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  59 

United  States  ; and  that,  therefore,  the  overthrow  of 
these  combinations  and  the  cessation  of  the  military 
rule  of  the  President  must  be  followed  by  the  re- 
sumption on  the  part  of  the  “ States  ” concerned  of 
all  their  rights  and  powers  of  local  self-government 
and  of  participation  in  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  unimpaired,  and  without  any  action  whatever 
on  the  part  of  Congress.  Mr.  Raymond  represented 
this  view  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. He  was  a Republican  of  the  Seward  school, 
and  sympathized  entirely  with  his  patron  upon  this  sub- 
ject. It  was  a great  embarrassment  to  him  that  the 
Democrats  immediately  gave  in  their  adherence  to  this 
view.  It  helped  to  prevent  him  from  gaining  any  fol- 
lowing at  all  for  it  among  the  Republicans. 

But  while  the  Republicans  of  the  House  repudiated 
entirely  Mr.  Raymond’s  principles,  the  great  mass  of 
them  were  not  able  to  accept  Mr.  Stevens’s  view  of  the 
temporary  validity  of  secession,  and  the  temporary  ex- 
istence of  the  Southern  Confederacy  as  a foreign  power. 
Their  feelings  and  instincts  required  a principle  of 
reconstruction  which,  at  the  same  time  that  it  did  not 
recognize  secession  as  having  any  validity  for  the  shortest 
moment,  yet  regarded  the  “ States  ” in  which  it  was 
attempted,  as  having  thereby  become  something  other 
than  “ States  ” of  the  Union,  and  as  requiring  the  assent 
of  Congress  to  the  rightful  resumption  of  that  status. 

It  was  Mr.  Shellabarger,  of  Ohio,  who  did  more  than 
anybody  else  to  give  the  proper  logical  interpreta- 
tion to  these  feelings  and  invent  the  theory  Mr.  sheiia- 
of  Reconstruction  on  which  the  Republicans  orygofRecon- 
could  plant  themselves.  Briefly  stated  that  sanction, 
theory  was  that,  while  secession  was  a nullity  legally 
from  the  beginning,  and  could  not  take  the  territory 


60 


RECONSTRUCTION 


occupied  by  the  “ States  ” attempting  it,  or  the  people  in- 
habiting  that  territory,  out  of  the  Union,  or  from  under 
the  rightful  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment and  Constitution  for  one  instant,  yet  it  worked 
the  loss  of  the  “State”  status  in  the  Union,  and  from 
a legal  point  of  view  left  this  territory  and  the  inhabi- 
tants of  it  subject  exclusively  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States  Government,  a status  from  which  they 
could  be  relieved  only  by  the  erection  of  “ States  ” anew 
upon  such  territory,  an  operation  which  could  be  ef- 
fected, under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
only  by  the  co-operation  of  Congress  with  the  loyal  in- 
habitants of  such  territory. 

This  was  sound  political  science  and  correct  constitu- 
tional law.  It  could  not  fail  to  command  the  assent  of 
the  great  majority  of  the  Republicans  in  the  House  and 
in  the  country.  This  same  doctrine  was,  at  the  same 
time,  developed  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Sumner,  Mr.  Fes- 
Mr.  sum-  sen  den  and  Mr.  Wilson,  and  it  was  easy  to  see 
ReconB t°ru c £ that  it  had  become  the  theory  of  the  Repub- 
tion-  lican  party  in  Congress  long  before  the  final 

report  of  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction  promulgated 
it.  Even  Stevens  and  his  radical  followers  were  in  line 
with  it  in  so  far  as  practical  results  were  concerned. 
That  is,  the  Republicans  all  stood  together  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  Reconstruction  could  only  be  effected  by  Con- 
gressional acts,  since  it  was  tantamount  to  a conferring, 
or  reconferring,  of  the  “ State  ” status  upon  a population 
at  the  moment  subject  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  This  meant  that  the 
entire  Republican  party  in  Congress,  with  the  exception 
of  the  four  members  of  the  Senate  already  named,  and 
of  Mr.  Raymond  and  one  other  in  the  House  (and  this 
constituted  a majority  of  two-thirds  in  each  House) 
would  antagonize  the  plan  of  Executive  Reconstruction 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  (6f^ 

devised  by  Lincoln  and  Seward  and  persisted  in  by 
Johnson  and,  to  that  moment,  by  his  cabinet.  How 
far  the  Republicans  in  Congress  would  go  TheRepnb. 
in  the  attempt  to  set  aside  Executive  Re-  Hcansincon- 

. i grees  almost 

construction  depended  chiefly  upon  the  mod-  unanimously 
eration  of  the  President,  and  the  sincerity  sheiiabarger- 
of  the  people  in  the  South.  It  depended  also  SumnerPan- 
in  some  degree,  to  say  the  least,  upon  what  would  be 
necessary  to  keep  the  Republican  party,  which  conceived 
itself  to  be  the  only  really  loyal  party  to  the  Union, 
in  power. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Sumner-Shellabarger 
theory  of  Reconstruction  was  correct.  The  only  ques- 
tion was  how  exacting  Congress  would  be  in  realizing 
it.  Under  such  a situation  it  behooved  the  President 
to  act  with  great  caution  and  moderation,  and  to  do 
nothing  to  provoke  a conflict  in  which  he  was  cer- 
tain to  be  worsted.  And  it  also  behooved  the  people  of 
the  South  to  make  no  opposition  to  the  bestowal  of  a 
large  measure  of  civil  liberty  upon  the  freedmen,  nor  to 
such  an  adjustment  of  the  basis  of  political  representa- 
tion as  would  not  necessitate  negro  suffrage,  and  not  to 
insist  upon  sending  to  Congress,  at  the  outset,  the  men 
who  had  made  themselves  particularly  obnoxious  to 
loyal  feeling.  How  both  the  President  and  the  per- 
sons in  authority  at  the  South  disregarded  these  con- 
siderations of  prudence,  and  how  the  position  assumed 
by  them  upon  these  subjects  drove  Congress  into  more 
and  more  radical  lines,  is  the  further  subject  of  the 
next  three  chapters. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  {Continued) 

The  Freedmen  Codes  in  the  South — The  Reports  of  Grant  and 
Schurz  in  Regard  to  the  Status  in  the  South — The  Freedmen’s 
Bureau  Bill  of  1866 — The  President’s  22d  of  February  Speech 
— The  Civil  Rights  Bill — The  Veto  of  the  Bill — The  Veto 
Overridden — The  Fourteenth  Amendment — The  Discussion  of 
the  Proposition  in  Congress — The  President’s  Attitude  toward 
the  Proposed  Amendment — Mr.  Seward’s  Acts  in  Regard  to 
Ratification — The  Requirement  that  the  Ratification  of  the 
Proposed  Amendment  should  be  the  Condition  of  the  Admis- 
sion of  the  Senators  and  Representatives-elect  to  Seats  in 
Congress — The  Tennessee  Precedent. 


We  have  reviewed  the  acts  of  the  new  legislature  of 
Mississippi  concerning  the  civil  status  of  the  freedmen. 

The  Freed  ^ *s  su®cient  to  say  that  during  the  winter 
men  codes  in  of  1865-66,  the  other  reconstructed  legislat- 
J ' ' ures  followed  the  example  of  the  legislature 
of  Mississippi.  These  movements  forced  upon  the  Re- 
publican party  in  Congress  the  conviction  that  the  civil 
rights  of  the  freedmen  must  be  secured  by  national  law. 
As  yet  there  existed  only  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  upon  which  to  base  Congressional  stat- 
utes, and  this,  as  we  know,  simply  abolished  and  pro- 
hibited slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  and  empow- 
ered Congress  to  pass  appropriate  laws  for  the  execution 
of  the  Amendment.  By  virtue  of  the  war  powers  still 
exercised  by  the  Administration  several  of  the  Union 
Generals,  as  we  shall  see,  had  set  aside  this  legislation  in 

62 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  63 

some  of  these  reconstructed  “States.”  But,  of  course, 
it  was  well  understood  that  this  was  only  a temporary 
remedy.  During  the  month  of  January,  1866,  the  Re- 
publicans in  Congress  became  convinced  that  the  newly 
organized  “ States,”  with  the  exception  of  Tennessee, 
were  consciously  developing  freedmen’s  codes  which 
would  not  differ  greatly  from  their  old  slave  codes. 

The  President  had  sent  General  Grant  and  General 
Carl  Schurz  on  tours  of  inspection  and  inquiry  through 
the  South,  during  the  late  summer  and  an-  The  reports 
tumn  of  1865  ; and  Congress  now  asked  the  schar^in8^ 
President  to  impart  to  it  the  information  f^tus1?!!  the 
thus  gathered.  The  two  reports  were  quite  South- 
contradictory.  General  Grant  said  that  he  drew  the  con- 
clusion from  his  observations  that  “ the  mass  of  think- 
ing men  of  the  South  accept  the  present  situation  of 
affairs  in  good  faith.”  He  also  indicated  that  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  were  a useless  set  of  men, 
dangerous  to  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  South,  and 
recommended  that  the  military  officers  in  the  different 
districts  should  be  put  in  charge  of  the  bureau. 

Mr.  Schurz,  on  the  other  hand,  reported  that  his  con- 
clusions from  his  observations  were  that  there  was  no 
loyalty  among  the  leaders  and  the  mass  of  the  people  in 
the  South,  except  such  as  consisted  in  submission  to 
necessity  ; that  they  were  consciously  attempting  in 
their  new  legislation  to  establish  a new  form  of  slavery, 
distinct  only  from  the  old  chattel  slavery  ; and  that  this 
could  be  prevented  only  by  national  law  and  national 
control,  at  least  for  many  years  to  come. 

General  Grant’s  visit  had  been  a flying  one,  and  his 
inquiries  upon  the  subject  were  secondary  only  to  his 
other  business.  On  the  other  hand,  General  Schurz  had 
journeyed  deliberately,  and  his  inquiries  were  the  chief, 
if  not  the  sole,  purpose  of  his  visit.  Moreover,  Gen- 


64 


RECONSTRUCTION 


eral  Schnrz  was  a keener  observer  in  regard  to  snch  mat- 
ters than  General  Grant,  and  a much  better  reasoner. 

Despite,  therefore,  the  great  popularity  and  influence 
of  General  Grant,  Congress  was  inclined  to  place  more 
The  attitude  credence  in  the  report  of  General  Schurz. 
toward* um  re-  While  its  Committee  on  Reconstruction  was 
oorts.  deliberating,  it,  therefore,  most  naturally  set 

itself  about  doing  what  it  could,  under  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment,  and  also  under  its  still  existing  war  powers, 
in  behalf  of  the  civil  rights  of  the  freedmen. 

The  first  measure  it  attempted  was  one  to  enlarge  the 
powers  of  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau.  This  supplementary 
The  Freed  ProJec^  originated  with  the  Judiciary  Corn- 
men’s  Bureau  mittee  of  the  Senate,  and  was  presented  in 
bin  the  Senate  on  the  12th  of  January,  1866. 

The  new  bill  proposed  to  increase  the  personnel  of  the 
bureau  and  expand  the  powers  vested  in  it  as  pro- 
vided in  the  law  of  March  3d,  1865,  in  the  following 
most  important  respects : 

First,  While  the  law  of  March  3d,  1865,  provided 
for  the  appointment  of  a commissioner  and  ten  assist- 
ants as  the  entire  personnel  of  the  Bureau,  the  new  bill 
authorized  the  appointment  of  a commissioner,  twelve 
assistant  commissioners,  and  the  appointment  or  detail 
of  an  agent  for  each  county  or  parish  throughout  the 
section  where  the  Bureau  might  operate. 

Second,  While  in  the  law  of  March  3d,  1865,  the 
Bureau  rather  appeared  to  be  under  the  civil  admin- 
istration of  the  President,  the  new  bill  placed  it  dis- 
tinctly under  the  military  administration  of  the  Pres- 
ident, and  authorized  the  President  to  extend  “ military 
jurisdiction  and  protection  over  all  of  the  officers, 
agents,  and  employees  of  the  Bureau.” 

Third,  While  the  law  of  March  3d,  1865,  confined 
the  powers  of  the  Bureau  to  the  giving  of  aid  to  refu- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OE  RECONSTRUCTION  65 

gees  and  freedmen  and  the  distribution  of  abandoned 
and  confiscated  lands  among  them,  the  new  bill  pro- 
posed, in  addition  to  this,  to  vest  in  the  Bureau  the  power 
to  build  school  houses  and  asylums  for  the  freedmen, 
and  the  most  wide-reaching  jurisdiction  over  all  civil 
and  criminal  cases  where  equality  in  civil  rights  and 
status,  and  in  the  application  of  penalties,  was  denied, 
or  the  denial  thereof  attempted,  on  account  of  race, 
color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude  ; and  it  au- 
thorized military  protection  in  all  such  cases  to  be  ex- 
tended to  the  suffering  party.  In  a single  sentence, 
this  bill  provided  a sort  of  palatine  jurisdiction  over  the 
freedmen  in  the  section  lately  the  scene  o^  rebellion. 

It  was  a stiff  measure  even  for  the  transition  period 
from  war  to  peace.  It  cannot  be  justified  constitu- 
tionally as  anything  but  a war  measure.  It  is  true  that 
the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  just  adopted,  could  be  in- 
terpreted as  giving  Congress  the  power  to  prohibit  ine- 
qualities in  civil  rights  and  in  criminal  punishments,  as 
the  incidents  of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  and  to 
extend  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  of  the  constitutional 
courts  of  the  United  States  over  all  cases  where  the 
attempt  to  apply  such  inequalities  should  be  made.  But 
it  certainly  did  not  give  Congress  the  power,  under  any 
ordinary  circumstances,  to  create  a new  system  of  courts, 
subject  to  the  Executive,  officered  by  military  men,  and 
armed  directly  with  military  power  to  enforce  decisions. 
It  was,  as  has  been  said,  a war  measure,  and  nothing 
else.  The  question  was  reduced  simply  to  this  : Ought  / 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  enact  a new  war 
measure,  after  armed  resistance  had  ceased  everywhere, 
except  perhaps  in  some  parts  of  Texas  ? Was  it  sound 
policy,  was  it  good  morals,  to  do  so,  when  the  people  in 
the  sections  lately  in  rebellion  were  settling  down  into 
the  pursuits  of  peace,  even  though  Congress  might 


66 


RECONSTRUCTION 


legally  have  the  right  to  do  so  ? The  bill  was  debated 
long  and  carefully  in  the  Senate  by  all  of  the  leading 
members,  and  the  opinion  finally  prevailed  among  them 
that  it  was  a measure  necessary  to  preserve  and  protect 
The  passage  freedom  of  the  newly  enfranchised.  It 
of  the  bin.  passed  the  Senate  by  a vote  of  37  to  10,  and 
the  House  by  a vote  of  136  to  33. 

On  the  10th  of  February  (1866)  it  was  sent  to  the 
President  for  his  signature.  In  a Message,  dated  the 
The  veto  19th  of  February,  the  President  put  his  veto 
upon  it.  upon  this  bill.  The  document  was  a strong 
and  sound  presentation  of  reasons  for  his  dissent.  He 
said  he  could  not  approve  of  a war  measure,  with  an  in- 
definite term,  when  the  authority  of  the  United  States 
was  not  disputed  in  any  part  of  the  country,  when  the 
rebellion  was  at  an  end,  and  when  the  country  had  re- 
turned, or  was  returning,  to  the  pursuits  of  peace. 
He  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  law  of  March  3d,  1865, 
was  still  in  operation,  and  claimed  that  it  furnished 
him  with  all  the  extraordinary  powers  necessary  to  pro- 
tect the  freedmen.  He  called  attention  to  the  army  of 
officials  which  this  proposed  law  would  create,  and  to 
the  enormous  expense  which  it  would  entail.  And  he 
denied  the  constitutional  power  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  to  assume  functions  for  negroes  which 
it  had  never  been  authorized  to  assume  for  white  men. 
There  is  little  question  now  that  the  President  was  cor- 
rect about  this  matter,  and  that  the  Congress  was  both 
reckless  and  aggressive,  not  to  say  vindictive.  But  it  is 
questionable  whether  the  President  did  not  himself  les- 
sen unnecessarily  his  influence  with  his  party  in  Con- 
gress, by  his  unqualified  opposition  to  any  strengthen- 
ing of  the  measure  of  1865.  He  might  have  returned 
the  bill  with  the  suggestion  that  it  should  have  a 
definite  limit  as  to  the  time  it  should  run,  and  have  ex- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  67 

pressed  his  willingness  to  sign  a bill  which  should  be  so 
limited.  Johnson  was  blunt  in  his  honesty.  But  Sew- 
ard was  his  adviser,  and  Seward  was,  above  everything, 
politic.  It  would  seem  that  he  either  failed  to  advise 
with  his  usual  sagacity  in  this  case,  or  that  his  advice 
was  unheeded. 

For  this  once  the  President’s  arguments  convinced 
enough  of  the  Senators  to  deprive  the  bill  of  the  sup- 
port of  the  necessary  majority  to  carry  it  The  veto  ef- 
over  his  veto,  even  so  stanch  a Republican  fective- 
as  ex-Governor  Morgan  of  New  York  voting  against  the 
bill  after  its  return.  The  Republican  majority  was 
deeply  chagrined,  not  to  say  discouraged,  and  the  Presi- 
dent was  injuriously  encouraged  to  enter  upon  the  strug- 
gle with  Congress  over  the  question  of  Reconstruction. 

On  the  evening  of  the  22d  of  February,  three  days 
after  his  successful  veto,  the  President  made  a most  im- 
portant speech  from  the  steps  of  the  White  The  Presi- 
House  to  a large  popular  meeting  assembled  br ifa r°y 
to  congratulate  him  upon  his  victory.  He  sPeech- 
was  betrayed  by  his  elation  and  warmth  into  an  abusive 
denunciation  of  his  enemies,  once,  and  only  a few  months 
before,  his  best  friends.  He  went  so  far  as  to  declare 
that  Stevens  and  Sumner  and  Phillips  and  others  like 
them  were,  in  his  opinion,  laboring  as  assiduously  to 
destroy  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  government 
as  were  the  leaders  of  the  rebellion.  After  such  an  open 
challenge,  the  contest  was  nearly  unavoidable.  It  was 
not  avoided,  whatever  might  have  been  the  possibilities 
of  re-establishing  harmony.  And  it  cannot  be  denied 
that,  from  this  moment,  personal  rancor  against  the 
President  filled  the  heart  of  Stevens,  at  least,  if  not  of 
the  others.  The  President’s  utterances  were,  indeed, 
highly  exasperating,  and  it  would  have  required  a very 
large  measure  of  public  virtue  to  have  ignored  them. 


68 


RECONSTRUCTION 


As  a part  of  the  same  plan  for  securing  the  civil  rights 
of  the-  freedmen  against  the  hostile  legislation  of  the 
The  civil  President’s  reconstructed  “ States/’  the  Ju- 
Rights  Bin.  diciary  Committee  of  the  Senate  reported  a 
Civil  Rights  bill  to  the  Senate  one  day  before  it  re- 
ported the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill,  that  is,  on  the 
11th  of  January.  The  right  of  way,  so  to  speak,  was, 
however,  given  to  the  latter  bill,  and  Congress  was 
nearly  two  months  longer  in  perfecting  the  former  than 
the  latter.  This  Civil  Rights  bill  certainly  avoided 
many  of  the  most  serious  objections  which  could  be 
truthfully  made  against  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill.  It 
was  not  a war  measure  in  a time  of  peace.  It  did  not 
provide  a privileged  jurisdiction  for  any  class,  and  it  did 
not  create  an  army  of  new  officials  to  drain  the  Treasury 
and  increase  the  patronage  of  the  President. 

The  purpose  of  it  was  simply  to  establish  equality  in 
the  enjoyment  of  civil  rights  ior  all  citizens  of  the  coun- 
try and  to  make  all  persons  born  in  the  country  and  not 
subject  to  any  foreign  power  citizens.  The  substantial 
part  of  the  bill,  as  perfected,,  read  : “ All  persons  born  in 
the  United  States  and  not  subject  to  any  foreign  power, 
excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  are  hereby  declared  to  be 
citizens  of  the  United  States  ; and  such  citizens  of  every 
race  and  color,  without  regard  to  any  previous  condition 
of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a punish- 
ment for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted,  shall  have  the  same  right,  in  every  State  and 
Territory  in  the  United  States,  to  make  and  enforce 
contracts,  to  sue,  be  parties,  and  give  evidence,  to  in- 
herit, purchase,  lease,  sell,  hold,  and  convey  real  and 
personal  property,  and  to  the  full  and  equal  benefit  of 
all  laws  and  proceedings  for  the  security  of  person  and 
property,  as  is  enjoyed  by  white  citizens,  and  shall  be 
subject  to  like  punishment,  pains  and  penalties,  and  to 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  69 

none  other,  any  law,  statute,  ordinance,  regulation  or 
custom,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.” 

This  is  simply  equality  for  all  before  the  law.  It 
conferred  no  political  privilege  and  no  social  equality. 
It  was  fairly  within  the  power  of  Congress  to  pass  such 
a measure,  by  interpreting  broadly  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment,  without  having  any  recourse  to  the  idea  of 
war  powers.  Slavery  was  nothing  but  extreme  inequal- 
ity in  civil  rights  between  master  and  servant.  The 
prohibition  of  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude  could, 
therefore,  most  certainly  be  held  to  be  the  prohibition 
of  all  of  these  incidents. 

The  remaining  provisions  of  the  bill  did  nothing 
more  than  fix  penalties  for  violating,  or  attempting  to 
violate,  civil  equality  as  thus  defined,  designate  the 
officers  charged  with  the  duty  of  prosecuting  the  of- 
fenders, and  establish  the  jurisdiction  for  the  trial  of 
such  cases. 

The  penalties  were  somewhat  grave.  They  might  be 
as  severe  as  a fine  of  one  thousand  dollars,  or  imprison- 
ment for  a year,  or  both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  courts. 
But  they  were  not  cruel  or  unusual,  and  were,  there- 
fore, within  the  power  of  Congress  to  prescribe.  The 
officers  authorized  and  required  to  institute  proceedings 
against  violators  of  the  law  were  the  district  attorneys, 
marshals  and  deputy  marshals  of  the  United  States 
courts,  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Circuit  and 
Territorial  courts  of  the  United  States,  the  officers  and 
agents  of  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau,  and  every  other  officer 
whom  the  President  might  see  fit  to  empower  thereto. 
And  the  jurisdiction  established  for  the  trial  of  such 
cases  was  that  of  the  United  States  courts,  upon  which 
was  conferred  original  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  any 
case  under  the  law,  and  to  which  any  case  touching 
these  subjects  commenced  in  a “ State  ” court  could 


70 


RECONSTRUCTION 


be  removed  on  motion  of  the  defendant.  But  all  these 
things  were  authorized  by  a liberal  construction  of  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment,  which  expressly  vests  in  Con- 
'gress  the  power  to  make  all  laws  necessary  and  proper 
.to  enforce  the  prohibition  of  slavery  throughout  the 
whole  country. 

It  was,  indeed,  a great  change  in  the  system  of  the  ju- 
risprudence of  the  United  States  that  the  central  Govern- 

Themeasure  ment  should  define  and  protect  civil  equality 
the  "points0  of  within  the  States.  But  it  was  a change  which 
miw  jurispru-  history  had  forced  upon  the  country,  and  the 
modern  po"v  sovereign  power  of  the  nation  had  deliber- 
icai  science,  ately  legalized  it.  There  is  no  question  now 
that  it  was  sound  political  science,  too,  and  that  it  was  re- 
quired by  public  morality.  Real  civil  liberty  is  always 
national.  Its  concepts  and  principles  spring  out  of  the 
national  consciousness  of  rights  and  wrongs.  And  civil 
equality  is  the  first  principle  of  modern  justice,  the 
most  pressing  behest  of  the  public  morality  of  the  age. 
Moreover,  this  .measure  did  not  militate  against  the 
President’s  plan  of  Reconstruction.  He  could  have  ac- 
cepted it  without  compromising  that  plan  in  the  slight- 
est, and  it  was  a monumental  blunder  on  his  part  that 
he  did  not  do  so. 

On  the  27th  of  March,  he  sent  his  veto  of  the  bill 
into  the  Senate.  It  was  a weak  argument  throughout. 

The  veto  of  He  objected  to  making  the  freedmen  citizens 
the  bill.  by  an  ac£  0f  Congress,  while  eleven  of  the 
thirty-six  “ States  ” were  unrepresented  in  Congress, 
and  made  out  that  it  was  a discrimination  in  favor  of 
the  ignorant  negro  against  the  intelligent  foreigner  not 
yet  naturalized.  He  objected  to  the  extension  of  the 
powers  of  the  central  Government  in  behalf  of  civil 
equality  within  the  “States”  as  destructive  of  the  fed- 
eral system  of  government,  and  as  degrading  to  the 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  ,71 

legislators  and  officials  of  the  “States.”  He  did  not 
deny  that  the  proposed  measure  might  be  sustained  as 
constitutional  under  the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  but 
maintained  that  it  was  unnecessary  for  the  execution 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Amendment.  He  objected, 
further,  to  the  number  of  officers  and  agents  authorized 
to  institute  proceedings  under  the  measure,  to  the  fee 
which  they  should  receive,  and  to  the  power  of  the 
President  to  order  the  courts  of  the  United  States  to 
migrate  from  one  place  to  another  when  necessary  for 
the  prompt  administration  of  justice.  And  he  objected, 
finally,  to  the  power  vested  in  the  President  to  use  the 
land  and  naval  forces  and  the  militia  to  prevent  the 
violation,  and  enforce  the  due  execution,  of  the  measure. 

Now  all  this  was  easily  answered  from  the  point  of 
view  which  Congress  and  the  North  had  now  firmly 
taken,  viz. : that  the  eleven  former  “ States  ” in  which 
rebellion  had  for  so  long  prevailed  were  not  “ States,” 
although  the  territory  formerly  occupied  by  them,  and 
the  population  formerly  inhabiting  them,  were  within 
the  United  States  and  were  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  central  Government ; that  the  rebellion  had 
demonstrated  that  the  central  Government  must  be 
intrusted  with  a large  increase  of  powers  in  protecting 
civil  equality  and  civil  liberty ; and  that  the  sovereign 
Nation  had  willed  this  in  the  enactment  and  adoption 
of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

Really  there  was  but  one  thing  in  the  bill  susceptible 
of  successful  criticism,  and  that  could  be  explained  so  as 
to  avoid  it.  It  was  the  ninth  section,  which  authorized 
the  President  to  use  military  power  in  execution  of  the 
law.  The  language  would  permit  the  Presi-  criticism  of 
dent  to  use  the  military  before  bringing  the  the  bm- 
matter  before  the  courts  and  securing  a decision.  It 
would  permit  the  President  to  use  the  military  as  the 


72 


RECONSTRUCTION 


primal,  instead  of  the  final,  agency  for  executing  the 
law.  It  appeared  to  be  in  this  respect  a real  force  bill, 
that  is  a bill  in  which  the  Executive  is  empowered  to 
use  the  military,  not  for  the  enforcement  of  judicial 
decision  in  aid  of  the  marshals,  deputies,  constables, 
and  their  posses,  which  is  the  customary  order  in  time 
of  peace,  but  for  the  execution  of  the  law  in  the  first 
instance,  before  decision  rendered  or  trial  had.  But  it 
was  entirely  clear  that  what  was  meant  in  this  section 
of  the  bill  was  that,  when  combi  nations  too  powerful  to 
be  dealt  with  by  the  courts  and  their  officers  should  un- 
dertake to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  law,  the  Presi- 
dent might  use  the  military  to  overcome  them.  Under 
such  an  interpretation,  this  provision  was  justifiable  and 
proper,  certainly  so  in  a transition  period  from  a condi- 
tion of  general  rebellion  against  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  to  that  of  gradual,  and  only  gradual,  acquiescence 
in  their  enforcement. 

The  President  most  decidedly  lost  his  chance  of  re- 
habilitating himself  with  his  party,  and  leading  it  in 
ThePresi-  wor^  °f  Reconstruction,  by  not  signing 
dent’s  biun-  this  bill.  He  sinned  against  the  Southern- 
ers themselves  in  not  doing  so.  His  veto  of 
it  made  them  believe  that  they  could  count  upon  the 
Administration,  the  Administration  Republicans,  and 
the  whole  Democratic  party  of  the  North,  in  denying 
equal  civil  rights  to  the  freedmen,  and  that  such  a com- 
bination must  eventually  triumph.  They,  therefore, 
persisted  in  their  course  of  exceptional  legislation 
against  the  freedmen  in  the  South,  and  in  their  arro- 
gant demands  for  the  immediate  admission  to  seatsin 
Congress  of  the  very  men  who  had  led  the  rebellion  for 
four  years  against  the  sovereignty  and  Government  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  amazing  that  they  did  not  see 
that  the  large  Republican  majority  in  Congress  would 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  73 


be  driven  to  the  alternative  of  seeing  the  work  of  fom 
years  of  terrible  sacrifice  undone  or  of  securing  its 
permanence  by  making  such  changes  in  the  organic 
law  as  would  effect  it,  while  yet  they  had  The  veto 
the  power.  On  the  6th  of  April,  the  Senate  ovemdden- 
overrode  the  President's  veto  of  the  Civil  Rights  bill, 
and  on  the  9th  the  House  did  likewise. 

While,  as  we  have  seen,  the  President  did  not  exactly 
deny  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill,  the  Democrats  in 
Congress,  and  the  Southerners  seeking  seats 
in  Congress,  did.  There  was,  therefore,  but  teenth  Amend" 
one  course  left  open  to  the  Republican  ma-  ment' 
jority,  and  that  was  to  make  what  they  considered  to  be 
the  incidents  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  express  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution.  There  were  also  several 
other  things  which  had  become  clear  in  the  course  of 
the  debates  in  the  Civil  Rights  bill  and  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  bill. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  seen  that  the  emancipation  of 
the  slaves  would  increase  the  representation  in  Congress 
and  in  the  Presidential  electoral  college  from  the  old 
slave  “States”  by  two-fifths  whenever  the  Southern 
communities  should  be  recognized  as  “States”  again, 
and  that  too  without  the  admission  of  the  emancipated 
persons  to  the  exercise  of  political  suffrage.  It  was  cer- 
tainly to  be  apprehended  that,  with  such  increased 
representation,  the  Southern  members  and  the  North- 
ern Democrats  would  constitute  a majority  in  Congress 
and  in  the  electoral  college,  and  might  proceed  not  only 
to  repeal  theCivil  Bights  Act,  and  all  acts  in  behalf  of 
the  freedmen,  but  also  to  throw  the  Confederate  debt 
or  A parfiof  itTipoirthe  United  States,  or  Establish  pen- 
sions for  Confederate  soldiers,  or  even  repudiate  the  debt 
of  the  Union  made  in  defence  of  its  own  life.  While  the 
danger  of  these  thiixgs— wasr--pTObabIv-r-SQxnewhat^xag- 


74 


RECONSTRUCTION 


gerated.  still  it  would  not  have  been  heenming  for  mpn 
of  prudence  and  patriotism  to  Eave  failed  to  provide 
against  them.  Really  there  was  but  one  thing  to  do, 
ancf  that  was  to  enact,  and  secure  the  adoption  of,  an- 
other amendment  to  the  Constitution  covering  these 
points,  while  the  power  to  do  so  still  existed. 

It  would  be  an  agreeable  thing  to  the  writer  of  this 
period  of  American  history,  were  he  able  to  record 
The  poiiti-  that  the  principal  matter  which  occupied  the 
in  ATpr°<£  thought  and  attention  of  the  Committee  on 
teenthAmend-  Reconstruction  was  how  to  secure  the  nec- 
ment"  essary  civil  rights  of  the  freedmen.  But  in 

the  interest  of  exact  truth  he  is  compelled  to  forego 
this  pleasure.  The  first  thing  which  that  Committee 
considered  and  recommended  to  the  Houses  of  Congress 
was  the  political  matter  of  a redistribution  of  the  rep- 
resentation in  the  House  of  Representatives  and  in 
the  Presidential  electoral  college.  On  the  22d  of  Jan- 
uary (1866)  the  Committee  reported  to  the  two  Houses 
the  following  proposition  as  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States:  “ Representatives  and 
direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union  ac- 
cording to  their  respective  numbers,  counting  the 
whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State — excluding  Ind- 
ians not  taxed — provided,  that  whenever  the  elective 
franchise  shall  be  denied  or  abridged  in  any  State  on  ac- 
count of  race  or  color,  all  persons  of  such  race  or  color 
shall  be  excluded  from  the  basis  of  representation.” 
For  nearly  six  weeks  both  the  Committee  and  Congress 
were  occupied  in  the  discussion  of  this  proposition.  In 
a slightly  modified  form  it  was  adopted  in  the  House, 
but,  at  last,  on  the  9th  of  March,  it  came  to  vote  in  the 
Senate,  and  not  having  received  the  necessary  two-thirds 
majority,  it  was  abandoned  as  a separate  measure,  and 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  75 

merged  into  the  general  article  containing  the  regula- 
tions of  all  the  points  to  which  reference  was  made 
above. 

It  was  Monday,  April  30th,  before  the  Committee  was 
ready  to  report  the  entire  article,  which  took  the  name 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution. 
The  article  as  presented  to  the  Houses  of  Congress  by 
the  Joint  Committee  on  that  day  read  as  follows  : 

“ Sect.  1.  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law 
which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  cit- 
izens of  the  United  States  ; nor  shall  any  State  deprive 
any  person  of  life,  liberty  or  property  without  due 
process  of  law  ; nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jur- 
isdiction the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

“ Sect.  2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States  which  may  be  included  within  this 
Union  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  counting 
the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State,  excluding 
Indians  not  taxed.  But  whenever  in  any  State  the 
elective  franchise  shall  be  denied  to  any  portion  of  its 
male  citizens  not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age,  or  in 
any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebellion 
or  other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  in  such  State 
shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of 
such  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of 
male  citizens  not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age. 

“ Sect.  3.  Until  the  4th  day  of  July  in  the  year  1870, 
all  persons  who  voluntarily  adhered  to  the  late  insurrec- 
tion, giving  it  aid  and  comfort,  shall  be  excluded  from 
the  right  to  vote  for  Representatives  in  Congress  and  for 
electors  for  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States. 

“ Sect.  4.  Neither  the  United  States  nor  any  State 
shall  assume  or  pay  any  debt  or  obligation  already  in- 
curred, or  which  may  hereafter  be  incurred,  in  aid  of 


76 


RECONSTRUCTION 


insurrection  or  war  against  the  United  States,  or  any 
claim  for  compensation  for  loss  of  involuntary  service 
or  labor. 

“ Sect.  5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce, 
by  appropriate  legislation,  the  provisions  of  this  Ar- 
ticle.” 

The  chief  difficulties  with  these  provisions  were,  first, 
that  they  did  not  define  who  were  the  citizens  of  the 
Defects  in  United  States ; second,  that  while  they  dis- 
oH, h^r Am e n ct  franchised  for  two  or  three  years  all  who  had 
ment.  voluntarily  taken  part  in  the  rebellion,  they 

did  not  disqualify  anybody  from  holding  office  or  legis- 
flative  mandate  on  account  of  such  conduct ; and  third, 
that  while  they  forbade  the  payment  of  any  debt  or  obli- 
gation incurred  in  aid  of  rebellion,  they  did  not  guarantee 
those  incurred  in  the  suppression  of  such  rebellion. 

The  discussion  in  Congress  upon  these  provisions  lasted 
through  the  month  of  May  and  well  into  June.  At  last 
The  discus-  in  the  second  week  of  June,  the  two  Houses 
prop  osftions  arrived  at  an  agreement  upon  the  modifica- 
m congress,  tions  which  seemed  proper  and  necessary,  and 
the  Article  as  thus  perfected  was  adopted  by  the  necessary 
two-thirds  vote  in  each  branch. 

The  first  section  had  been  modified  by  the  incorpora- 
tion into  it  of  a sentence  which  defined  citizenship  of 
The  final  the  United  States.  It  reads:  “All  persons 
draft  agreed  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  wherein  they 
reside.”  This  cleared  up  all  difficulties  in  determining 
who  the  persons  were,  whose  privileges  and  immunities 
were  to  be  protected  against  “ State  ” action.  It  also  set- 
tled the  question,  forever,  as  to  whether  citizenship  of  the 
United  States  or  citizenship  of  the  “State”  is  primary. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  in  that  clause  of  the  original  Con- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  77 

stitution  which  declares  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  laws  of  Congress  made  in  accord- 
ance therewith,  and  the  treaties  made  under  the  authority 
thereof,  are  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  no  matter  what 
may  be  found  in  “ State  ” constitutions  or  laws  to  the 
contrary,  primary  allegiance  of  all  citizens  and  persons 
to  the  United  States  was  established  and  required,  but 
the  advocates  of  “ State  ” sovereignty  always  contended 
that,  because  there  was  no  express  clause  in  the  Constitu- 
tion defining  citizenship,  and  declaring  the  citizenship 
of  the  United  States  primary,  citizenship  was  primarily 
of  the  “State,”  and,  hence,  allegiance  was  due  primar- 
ily to  the  “ State  ” by  all  its  inhabitants.  It  was  very 
proper  and  very  desirable  that  this  contention  should  be 
set  at  rest. 

The  language  of  the  second  section  had  been  revised  so 
as  to  make  its  meaning  more  clear,  hut  it  had  not  been 
changed  at  all  as  to  its  meaning.  It  reads  in  its  perfected 
form  : “ Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the 
several  States  according  to  their  respective  numbers, 
counting  the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State, 
excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the  right  to 
vote  at  any  election  for  the  choice  of  electors  for  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  Represent- 
atives in  Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  of 
a State,  or  the  members  of  the  legislature  thereof,  is  de- 
nied to  any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such  State,  being 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  re- 
bellion or  other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation 
therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the 
number  of  such  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole 
number  of  male  citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  in 
such  State.” 

For  section  third,  denying  suffrage  until  1870  to  all 


78 


RECONSTRUCTION 


persons  who  had  given  aid  voluntarily  to  the  rebellion, 
Congress  had  substituted  an  entirely  new  resolution, 
which  rendered  the  Confederate  chieftains  ineligible 
to  office  instead  of  disqualifying  the  rank  and  file  for 
suffrage.  It  reads  as  follows  : “No  person  shall  be  a sen- 
ator or  Representative  in  Congress,  or  elector  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President,  or  hold  any  office,  civil  or  mili- 
tary, under  the  United  States,  or  under  any  State,  who 
having  previously  taken  an  oath,  as  a member  of  Con- 
gress, or  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a mem- 
ber of  any  State  legislature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judi- 
cial officer  of  any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in  insurrec- 
tion or  rebellion  against  the  same,  or  given  aid  or 
comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  But  Congress  may, 
by  a vote  of  two-thirds  of  each  House,  remove  such  dis- 
ability.” 

This  was  certainly  a wise  change.  It  certainly  could 
not  be  contended  that  disqualifications  for  holding  office 
and  legislative  mandate  violated  any  so-called  natural 
right.  It  was  better  that  whatever  punishments  of  a 
political  nature  might  fall  upon  the  Confederates  should 
strike  the  leaders,  rather  than  the  followers.  And  it  was 
not  a sevei’e  punishment  which  required  that,  for  a time 
at  least,  the  people  inhabiting  the  communities  lately  in 
rebellion  should  choose  as  their  representatives  to  the 
National  legislature  and  to  the  Presidential  electoral 
college,  and  as  their  “ State  ” officers,  men  not  identified 
with  the  rebellion  so  closely  as  to  have  been  among  its 
leaders.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Confederate 
leaders  could  have  been  required  to  suffer  less,  and 
have  been  rebuked  at  all  for  their  acts. 

Finally,  section  four  was  supplemented  by  a sentence 
which  declared  that  “ the  validity  of  the  public  debt  of 
the  United  States,  authorized  by  law,  including  debts 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  79 

incurred  for  payment  of  pensions  and  bounties  for  ser- 
vices in  suppressing  insurrection  or  rebellion,  shall  not 
be  questioned.”  The  last  words  of  the  section  were 
also  somewhat  modified  in  the  direction  of  greater  em- 
phasis, but  the  meaning  remained  the  same.  As  thus 
perfected,  the  section  declared  the  validity  of  all  the 
existing  obligations  of  the  United  States,  and  repudi- 
ated all  obligations  whatsoever  assumed  in  aid  of  rebel- 
lion, and  all  claims  for  the  loss  or  emancipation  of  any 
slave.  This  covered  the  ground  completely  in  regard  to 
the  security  of  the  public  obligations  of  the  United 
States  both  from  the  positive  and  negative  side,  and  it 
prevented  both  Congress  and  the  “ States”  from  ever  rec- 
ognizing, in  the  future,  the  claim  for  any  relief  from 
the  natural  consequences  of  unsuccessful  rebellion,  and 
the  right  to  any  compensation  for  deprivation  of  prop- 
erty in  man. 

As  Congress  passed  these  propositions  by  the  neces- 
sary two-thirds  majority  they  were  not  submitted  to  the 
President  at  all,  it  being  considered  that  his  disapproval, 
if  given,  would  avail  nothing  against  such  a majority. 
This  has  been  the  custom  from  the  first  in  Congressional 
propositions  of  amendment,  and  it  is  now  too  late  to  dis- 
pute its  regularity.  But  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  Presi- 
dent might  support  a veto  of  such  propositions  by  such 
reasoning  as  to  make  it  at  least  possible  that  sufficient 
votes  might  be  changed  from  affirmative  to  negative 
upon  them,  to  finally  defeat  them ; and  it  is  certainly 
true  that  the  Constitution  requires  that  every  bill,  order, 
resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the  Sen- 
ate and  House  of  Representatives  may  be  necessary 
(except  on  a question  of  adjournment)  shall  be  pre- 
sented to  the  President  and  is  subject  to  his  approval 
or  veto,  no  matter  by  what  majority  it  may  have  been 
passed. 


80 


RECONSTRUCTION 


However,  President  Johnson  had  no  opportunity  to 

express  himself  officially  or  make  himself  officially  felt 

ThePresi'-  in  regar(l  to  this  Amendment.  It  was  pretty 

dent’s  attitude  well  understood  that  he  did  not  view  it  with 
toward  the  . ..  . ..  , 

proposed  favor  while  it  was  pending,  and  it  soon  be- 

amendment.  . . . . 

came  manifest  that  he  was  advising  its  re- 
jection by  the  “ States.” 

Mr.  Seward  issued  his  notification  of  the  passage  of 
the  amendment  by  Congress  to  the  “State”  legislatures 
„ „ . for  their  ratificatory  action  on  the  16th  of 

Mr.  Seward  J 11*1 

acts  in  regard  June.  He  sent  the  same  to  the  legislatures 
to  ratification.  ^ Cie  “States,”  that  is,  to  the  legislat- 
ures of  those  bodies  claiming  to  be  “ States”  under  the 
President’s  plan  of  Reconstruction,  as  well  as  to  the 
legislatures  of  those  “ States  ” which  had  never  pre- 
tended to  secede  from  the  Union.  This  was,  again, 
certainly  a recognition  of  all  these  bodies  as  “ States  ” 
of  the  Union  by  the  executive  branch  of  the  Govern- 
ment, at  least. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Reconstruction  Committee  of 
Congress  had  reported  a bill  along  with  the  Article  of 
The  require-  Amendment,  which  virtually  proposed  to 
ratification *ol  make  the  ratification  of  the  proposed  Amend- 
Am ePn dment  ment  by  the  respective  legislatures  of  the  re- 
condition6 constructed  Southern  communities  the  con- 
the  admission  dition  of  the  admission  of  the  Senators  and 


of  the  Senators  ...  . . . . . . , . 

and  Rep  re-  Representatives-elect  from  them  to  seats  in 
elect1  to 'seats  Congress.  That  is,  it  was  proposed  that 
m congress.  Congress  should  make  its  recognition  of  the 
reconstructed  bodies  as  “ States  ” conditional  upon  their 
ratification  of  the  Article  of  Amendment.  Or  perhaps 
some  of  those  supporting  this  proposition  would  have 
preferred  the  statement  that  it  was  proposed  that  Con- 
gress should  make  its  recognition  of  the  reconstructed 
governments  of  the  “ States  ” in  which  secession  had 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  81 

been  attempted  conditional  upon  the  ratification  of  the 
Amendment  by  the  legislative  departments  of  these  re- 
constructed governments  respectively. 

No  matter  how  it  might  have  been  stated,  it  was  an 
absurdity.  The  true  theory  on  this  point  was  that  held 
by  Mr.  Stevens,  viz.,  to  consider  only  those  Theab8Urd 
“ States  ” which  had  never  attempted  seces-  ity  of  the  con- 
sion,  those  “ States”  which  had  never  been  1 D' 
members  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  as  constituting  the 
“States”  of  the  Union  at  that  moment,  and  all  other 
territory  and  people  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States  as  being  under  the  exclusive  government 
of  the  central  Government ; to  amend  the  Constitution 
by  a three-fourths  majority  of  these  loyal  “States”;  and 
then  to  admit  these  reconstructed  communities  as  new 
“ States  ” into  the  Union  with  its  amended  Constitution. 

The  amended  Constitution  would  then  have  the  same 
power  over  them  as  if  the  Amendment  had  been  ratified 
by  them.  In  fact,  their  petition  for  admission  or  recog- 
nition as  “States”  of  the  Union  with  the  amended  Con- 
stitution would  imply  their  assent  to  the  Amendment 
as  well  as  to  every  other  part  of  the  Constitution.  The 
more  moderate  Republicans  feared  that  the  Southern 
communities  would  not  feel  obligated  by  a Constitution 
amended  in  this  way.  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  they 
should  not.  The  Southern  statesmen  knew  that  Con- 
gress had  no  power  under  the  Constitution  to  require 
of  new  “States”  obedience  to  anything  as  a condition  of 
their  admission  to  the  Union,  but  the  Constitution  as  it 
was  at  the  moment  of  their  admission.  Looked  at  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  present,  it  would  certainly 
appear  that  the  exaction  of  such  an  unlawful  promise, 
imposing  such  a degrading  discrimination,  would  have 
been  far  more  exasperating  than  anything  else  which 
could  have  been  invented  or  imagined. 


82 


KECONSTR  UCTION 


Enough  of  them  saw  this  to  prevent  Congress  from 
enacting  the  bill  proposed  by  the  Reconstruction  Com- 
mittee into  a law,  and  when  the  proposed  Amendment 
went  to  the  legislatures  of  the  “ States/’  there  was  no 
requirement  attending  it  which  appeared  to  deprive  any 
legislature,  or  body  claiming  to  be  a legislature,  of  its 
discretion  in  dealing  with  the  subject. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  however,  the  legislature  of  Ten- 
nessee ratified  the  proposed  Amendment  within  about 
a month  after  receiving  the  Article  from 
d enteseteby  Secretary  Seward,  and  Congress  thereupon 
Tennetsee.  passed  the  following  joint  resolution  and  sent 
it  to  thv  ’’resident  for  his  signature  : “ Whereas  in  the 
year  1861  the  government  of  the  State  of  Tennessee  was 
seized  upon  and  taken  possession  of  by  persons  in  hos- 
tility to  the  United  States,  and  the  inhabitants  of  said 
State,  in  pursuance  of  an  act  of  Congress,  were  declared 
to  be  in  a state  of  insurrection  against  the  United  States  ; 
and  whereas  said  State  government  can  only  be  restored 
to  its  former  political  relations  in  the  Union  by  consent 
of  the  lawmaking  power  of  the  United  States  ; and 
whereas  the  people  of  said  State  did,  on  the  22d  of 
February,  1865,  by  a large  popular  vote,  adopt  and  rat- 
ify a constitution  of  government  whereby  slavery  was 
abolished  and  all  ordinances  and  laws  of  secession  and 
debts  contracted  under  the  same  were  declared  void  ; 
and  whereas  a State  government  has  been  organized 
under  said  constitution  which  has  ratified  the  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution  abolishing  slavery,  also  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  thirty-ninth  Congress” 
(the  Fourteenth  Amendment)  “and  has  done  other  acts 
proclaiming  and  denoting  loyalty  : Therefore,  Be  it  re- 
solved by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  in 
Congress  assembled,  That  the  State  of  Tennessee  is 
hereby  restored  to  her  former  practical  relations  to  the 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  83 

Union,  and  is  again  entitled  to  be  represented  by  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives  in  Congress. ” 

These  proceedings  made  it  certain  that,  while  Congress 
had  failed  to  pass  any  formal  act  making  the  acceptance 
of  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  a TheTennes- 
condition  precedent  to  the  readmission  of  see  precedent, 
the  other  “ States  ” which  had  been  in  rebellion,  Con- 
gress would  not  readmit  any  of  them  which  did  not  do 
this.  Tennessee,  it  was  thought,  had  sinned  the  least 
of  all,  and,  therefore,  should  be  readmitted  on  lightest 
terms.  More  might  be  righteously  required  of  the 
others,  but  not  less. 

The  President  signed  the  resolution,  but  accompanied 
the  same  with  a short  message  in  which  he  made  a rather 
telling  criticism  upon  the  procedure  of  sub-  The  Preei- 
mitting  proposed  constitutional  amendments  fage  in  regard 
to  bodies  not  already  “ States ” in  the  Union,  1° ironbof 
and  warned  Congress  against  construing  his  Tennessee, 
approval  as  committing  him  to  all  of  the  statements  of 
fact  contained  in  the  preamble  to  the  resolution,  or  to 
the  doctrine  that  Congress  had  any  right  “ to  pass  laws 
preliminary  to  the  admission  of  duly  qualified  Repre- 
sentatives from  any  of  the  States.”  These  latter  words 
manifest  the  fact  that  the  President  was  still  holding 
on  to  the  idea  that  the  whole  function  of  Congress  in 
Reconstruction  consisted  in  the  power  of  each  House  to 
judge  of  the  election  and  qualifications  of  its  members. 


CHAPTER  YI 


THE  CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  ( Continued ) 

The  Reports  of  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction — The  Idea  of  a 
New  Electorate  as  the  Basis  and  Condition  of  Reconstruction— 
The  Freedmen’s  Bureau  Act  of  July  16th,  1866 — The  Disaf- 
fection in  the  Cabinet — The  New  Orleans  Riot — The  Issue  of 
Reconstruction  in  the  Campaign  of  1866 — The  Congressional 
Election  of  1866 — The  President’s  Final  Proclamation  De- 
claring the  Civil  War  Ended — The  October  Elections — The 
President’s  Message  of  December  3d,  1866 — Rejection  of  the 
Proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  the  legislatures  of  the 
Reconstructed  “States.” 


Two  days  after  the  transmission  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  “ State  ” legislatures,  the  Joint 
The  reports  Committee  of  Congress  on  Reconstruction 
mittee6on  Be-'  made  its  final  report,  or  rather  reports,  since 
construction,  there  were  two  of  them,  one  being  signed 
by  all  the  Republican  members  of  the  Committee,  and 
the  other  by  all  the  Democratic  members. 

The  majority  report  was  an  able  defence  of  the  view, 
that  by  rebellion  and  attempted  secession  the  eleven 
The  major-  “States”  in  which  these  things  happened 
ity report.  Had  lost  their  “Statehood”  and  had  become 
disorganized  communities,  but  that  while  they  could  and 
had  destroyed  “ State  ” government,  and  placed  them- 
selves outside  of  the  Union  so  far  as  exercising  the 
powers  and  privileges  of  “State”  local  government  was 
concerned,  they  could  not,  and  had  not,  escaped  the 
obligations  of  the  Constitution  and  the  authority  of  the 

84 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  85 

central  Government.  The  exact  language  of  the  report 
on  this  point  was  : “ The  Constitution,  it  will  be  observed, 
does  not  act  upon  States,  as  such,  but  upon  the  people  ; 
while,  therefore,  the  people  cannot  escape  its  authority, 
the  States  may,  through  the  act  of  their  people,  cease 
to  exist  in  an  organized  form,  and  thus  dissolve  their 
political  relations  with  the  United  States.”  The  doc- 
trine is  here  more  clearly  expressed  than  in  other  places, 
but  even  here  there  is  a confusing  modification  con- 
tained in  the  words  “ in  an  organized  form.”  It  would 
have  been  much  clearer  if  they  had  been  entirely  omitted. 
The  framers  of  the  report  were  evidently  haunted  by 
that  spectre  of  an  abstract,  unorganized  “ State,”  which 
has  played  such  havoc  with  good  sense  in  some  of  the 
subsequent  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  which 
is  nothing  more  than  a Platonic  idea. 

Based  upon  this  doctrine,  the  majority  report  natu- 
rally vindicated  the  exclusive  right  of  Congress  in  the 
work  of  Reconstruction,  which  work  was  virtually  the 
admission  of  new  “ States  ” into  the  Union.  It,  further- 
more, demonstrated  that  the  situation  in  these  disorgan- 
ized sections  was  one  largely  of  exhausted  disloyalty 
only,  and  that  all  that  the  inhabitants  of  them  had 
done  under  the  President’s  Reconstruction  policy  was 
directed  toward  putting  the  same  men  in  power  who 
had  led  in  the  rebellion  and  toward  denying  civil,  to 
say  nothing  of  political,  rights  to  the  freedmen. 

And  its  final  conclusion  was,  “ that  Congress  would 
not  be  justified  in  admitting  such  communities  to  a par- 
ticipation in  the  government  of  the  country  without 
first  providing  such  constitutional  or  other  guarantees 
as  would  tend  to  secure  the  civil  rights  of  all  citizens  of 
the  Republic  ; a just  equality  of  representation  ; protec- 
tion against  claims  founded  in  rebellion  and  crime  ; a 
temporary  restoration  of  the  right  of  suffrage  to  those 


86 


RECONSTRUCTION 


who  have  not  actively  participated  in  the  efforts  to  de- 
stroy the  Union  and  overthrow  the  Government ; and 
the  exclusion  from  positions  of  public  trust  of  at  least  a 
portion  of  those  whose  crimes  have  proved  them  to  be 
the  enemies  of  the  Union,  and  unworthy  of  public  con- 
fidence.” 

As  we  have  seen,  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Article  of 
Amendment  had  provided  for  all  of  these  things,  except 
the  direct  conferring  of  suffrage  on  anybody.  With  this 
exception,  it  had  gone  even  further,  in  its  provision 
declaratory  of  citizenship,  and  in  its  protection  of  the 
public  debt  of  the  Union. 

The  report  of  the  minority,  that  is  of  the  three  Dem- 
ocrats, was  written  by  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson,  of  Mary- 
The  minor-  land.  It  was,  as  a lawyer’s  brief,  an  able 
ity report.  presentation  of  the  view  that  a “State”  of 
the  Union  can  never  become  anything  else  than  a 
“ State,”  no  matter  what  may  be  the  character,  deeds, 
attempts  or  disposition  of  the  people  who  inhabit  it,  and 
is  at  all  times  entitled  to  the  same  powers,  rights  and 
privileges,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
It  was,  however,  the  veriest  dry  bones  of  legal  reasoning, 
the  veriest  sophistry  of  juristic  abstraction.  There  was 
no  political  science  in  it,  no  common  sense  in  it,  and  it 
ended  with  an  unfortunate  and  irritating  defence  of 
President  Johnson’s  personal  loyalty,  which  had  not  been 
in  the  slightest  degree  impugned  by  the  majority. 

The  majority  report  indicated,  at  least,  that  Congress 
might  require  something  more  than  adoption  of  the 
The  idea  of  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  the  communities 
rate^a  ''"the  lately  in  rebellion  before  they  would  be  rec- 
dftion8  of  CRel  °gnize(l  as  having  been  restored  to  their 
construction,  proper  relations  in  the  Union  as  “States,” 
and  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress.  At  the  mo- 
ment, however,  it  is  probable  that  a prompt  adoption  of 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OP  RECONSTRUCTION  87 

the  proposed  Amendment  by  any  of  the  reconstructed 
legislatures  would  have  been  followed  by  a joint  resolu- 
tion on  the  part  of  Congress  similar  to  that  enacted  in 
the  case  of  Tennessee.  There  is  no  doubt  that  many  of 
the  more  radical  members  of  Congress  had  been  long 
considering  the  question  of  creating  an  entirely  new 
electorate  in  the  South  as  the  only  proper  basis  for  re- 
construction, and  that  some  of  the  conservatives,  from 
being  opponents  of  this  idea  at  the  beginning  of  the 
year,  had,  by  the  middle  of  it,  begun,  at  least,  to  waver. 
To  those  who  could  read  the  signs  of  the  times  correctly, 
it  was  manifest  that  a rejection  of  the  proposed  Four- 
teenth Amendment  by  these  communities  would  lead 
Congress  forward  upon  that  line.  The  President  ought 
to  have  understood  this,  when  Mr.  Raymond  voted  for 
the  proposed  Amendment  in  the  House.  He  ought  to 
have  done  all  in  his  power  to  influence  the  reconstructed 
communities  to  adopt  the  proposed  Amendment,  no 
matter  whether  the  submission  of  it  to  them  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  of  the  United  States  logically  involved 
their  recognition  as  “States  ” of  the  Union  by  the  Ad- 
ministration at  Washington,  or  not.  They  were  not  in 
a position  to  exact  the  precise  conclusion  of  a logical 
process  in  their  favor,  especially  as  it  was  based  on  a 
fallacious  premise,  and  the  President  did  both  himself 
and  them  a great  wrong  in  not  discouraging  them  from 
so  doing. 

A few  weeks  later  Congress  scored  another  victory 
over  the  President,  one  which  did  much  toward  wiping 
out  the  defeats  of  February  19th  and  21st.  The  preed- 
it passed  another  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill,  Actn'ofBjruiy 
and  then  repassed  it  July  16th,  over  the  ^th.isee. 
President's  veto.  This  bill  was  framed  with  the  purpose 
in  view  of  avoiding  those  features  of  the  bill,  successfully 
vetoed  by  the  President  on  February  19th  preceding. 


88 


RECONSTRUCTION 


which  had  influenced  certain  Republicans  to  sustain  the 
President’s  veto.  The  differences  between  the  two 
measures  consisted  in  the  following  points.  The  first 
bill  had  no  definite  time  limit ; the  second  would  expire 
in  two  years  from  the  date  of  its  passage.  The  first  bill 
vested  jurisdiction  in  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  over  the 
civil  rights  of  freedmen  and  refugees  in  all  parts  of  the 
United  States.  The  second  vested  the  bureau  with 
jurisdiction  over  loyal  refugees  and  freedmen  without 
mention  of  place.  The  first  vested  a most  sweeping 
power  in  the  Bureau  to  give  all  kinds  of  aid  and  support 
to  the  destitute  refugees  and  freedmen.  The  second 
contained  only  the  more  moderate  provision  of  the  orig- 
inal law  of  March  3d,  1865,  on  that  subject.  Finally  the 
first  gave  the  Bureau  jurisdiction  over  the  civil  rights 
of  freedmen  and  refugees,  not  only  when  the  depriva- 
tion of  them  was  the  consequence  of  rebellion,  but  when 
it  was  effected  by  any  local  law,  ordinance,  police  regula- 
tion or  other  regulation.  The  second,  on  the  contrary, 
limited  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bureau  to  those  cases 
where  the  deprivation  was  the  consequence  of  rebellion. 

The  President  could  not,  however,  see  much  differ- 
ence between  them.  He  claimed  that  his  objections  to 
the  first  bill  were  valid  against  the  second.  The  second 
measure,  he  contended,  was  only  a war  measure  for  a 
The  veto  of  definite  period,  in  a time  of  peace.  It  was  the 
the  measure,  prolongation  for  a definite  time  of  military 
jurisdiction  over  civil  matters,  when  the  civil  courts 
both  “State”  and  Union  were  open  and  in  the  unhin- 
dered discharge  of  their  business.  And  he  held  the 
ground  that  Congress  had  no  more  constitutional  power 
to  create,  or  perpetuate,  military  jurisdiction  over  civil 
matters  for  a definite  period  in  time  of  peace  than  for 
an  indefinite  period.  He  referred  to  the  fact  that  the 
Civil  Rights  measure,  just  passed  over  his  veto,  met  all 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  89 

the  points  provided  for  in  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill, 
and  affirmed  that  all  of  the  provisions  of  that  law  would 
be  executed  by  him  through  ordinary  civil  means,  in  so 
far  as  they  should  not  be  repealed  by  Congress  or  de- 
clared unconstitutional  by  the  courts. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  to-day  it  is  difficult  to  see 
why  the  President  was  not  right.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  Freedmen’s  Bureau  with  its  powers, 

-*■  Correctue  s s 

jurisdiction  and  charities,  was  a far  greater  ofthePresi- 

source  of  irritation  in  the  South  than  was  dent8Views- 
the  presence  of  the  United  States  army.  While  its 
superior  officers  were  generally  men  of  ability  and  char- 
acter, a large  number  of  the  subalterns  were  canting 
hypocrites  and  outright  thieves.  They  kept  the  negroes 
in  a state  of  idleness,  beggary  and  unrest,  and  made 
them  a constant  danger  to  the  life  and  property  of  the 
whites  ; and  their  veritable  tyranny  over  the  white  pop- 
ulation did  more  to  destroy  Union  sentiment  among 
the  whites  and  make  them  regard  the  United  States 
Government  in  a hostile  light  than  anything  which  had 
happened  during  the  whole  course  of  the  rebellion.  It 
wasjm  institution  which  ought  to  have  been  dispensed 
with  the  instant  that  the  necessity  which  called  it  into 
existence  passed  away.  The  law  of  March  3d,  1865,  had 
still  about  eight  months  to  run,  and  Congress  would  be 
in  session  again  four  months  before  it  would  expire. 
There  was  ample  opportunity  for  prolonging  the  law, 
and  that  law,  it  was  to  be  presumed,  was  less  needed  in 
1866  than  in  1865.  It  took  all  of  the  party  discipline 
of  the  Republicans  to  prevent  sufficient  disaffection 
in  their  ranks  to  sustain  the  President’s  veto.  On 
the  merits  of  the  question  alone  they  could  not  have 
done  it.  They  were  in  error,  and  many  of  them  knew 
it,  but  they  were  now  in  to  fight  the  President  and  they 
must  stand  together. 


90 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  veto  of  the  bill  was  dated  July  16th,  and  the  two 
Houses  repassed  it  over  the  veto  on  the  same  day.  The 
The  veto  new  law  was  t°  be  executed  through  the  War 
overridden.  Department,  as  the  original  measure  had 
been,  and  the  Secretary  of  War  had  begun  to  manifest 
that  indecent  hostility  to  the  President  which  disgraced 
the  last  years  of  the  Administration.  The  President 
was  largely  cut  off  from  even  the  knowledge  of  what 
was  taking  place  in  the  operations  of  the  Freedmen’s 
Bureau,  and  Mr.  Stanton  now  managed  it  in  such  a 
manner,  whether  intentional  or  not,  as  to  cause  the 
greatest  possible  friction  between  the  Government  and 
the  whites  of  the  South,  and  thus  to  retard  the  process 
of  Reconstruction  and  to  destroy  what  had  been  already 
accomplished  in  that  direction. 

Besides  Stanton,  three  other  members  of  the  Cabinet 
had  showed  their  disaffection  toward  the  President’s 
Disaffection  policy.  They  were  Mr.  Speed,  the  Attorney- 
m the  Cabinet.  Denera^  Mr.  Dennison,  the  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral, and  Mr.  Harlan,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 
During  the  course  of  the  month  (July)  these  three  gen- 
tlemen resigned  their  offices,  and  were  replaced  by  Mr. 
Stanbery,  Mr.  A.  W.  Randall,  and  Mr.  0.  H.  Brown- 
ing. Their  sense  of  propriety  would  not  permit  them 
to  retain  high  office  under  the  President  while  differing 
with  him  so  widely  in  regard  to  the  fundamental  ques- 
tion of  Reconstruction.  Mr.  Stanton,  however,  took  a 
different  view  of  his  duty.  He  seemed  to 

Stanton’s  at-  .....  . , . , . . . . . 

titude  toward  feel  that  he  was  under  obligations  to  his 
the  President.  coun£ry  f.Q  remain  jn  the  President’s  Cabinet, 

at  the  head  of  the  most  important  branch  of  the  Admin- 
istration at  that  moment,  and  protect  the  country 
against  the  purposes  of  the  President.  He  was  sus- 
tained in  this  view  by  the  Republican  majority  in  Con- 
gress, which  soon  entered  upon  its  course  of  depriving 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  91 

the  President  of  his  military  control  even,  by  transfer- 
ring his  functions  to  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Gen- 
eral of  the  army.  To  the  men  of  the  present  day,  Mr. 
Stanton’s  conduct  appears,  at  least,  lacking  in  a proper 
sense  of  delicacy.  It  may  be  regarded  in  an  even 
more  serious  light.  It  may  be  looked  upon  as  a con- 
spiracy with  the  Republican  majority  in  Congress  to  rob 
the  President  of  his  constitutional  prerogatives,  to 
change  the  form  of  government  from  the  presidential 
system  to  the  parliamentary  system  of  administration. 
It  is  difficult  to  find  any  sufficient  defence  for  Mr.  Stan- 
ton’s course.  It  is  impossible  to  clear  him  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  great  egotism  or  of  great  greed  of  office,  in 
not  resigning  along  with  his  dissatisfied  colleagues. 

The  President  knew  of  this  difference  of  feeling  be- 
tween himself  and  his  War  Secretary  at  the  time  of  his 
reorganization  of  the  Cabinet  in  July,  and  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  glad  to  receive  his  resignation, 
but  he  did  not  ask  for  it.  The  newspapers  which 
sustained  the  Administration  did,  however,  and  pre- 
dicted that  it  would  be  forthcoming.  The  Republican 
leaders,  on  the  other  hand,  encouraged  Stanton  to  hold 
on  to  the  office,  and  represented  to  him  that  the  welfare 
of  his  country  demanded  the  sacrifice  of  his  personal 
feelings  in  the  matter. 

It  was  now  generally  proclaimed  throughout  the 
North  that  the  rebel  chieftains  had  repossessed  them- 
selves of  the  reconstructed  “ State  ” gov-  . . 

& The  opinion 

ernments  and  were  making  use  of  “State”  and  feeling  in 

° the  North  con- 

powers  to  re-enslave  the  freedmen.  It  was  cerningthe 
also  proclaimed  that  the  life  and  property  of  things  in  the 
Union  men,  of  whatever  race,  at  the  South  South" 
were  utterly  insecure,  and  that  at  least  a thousand 
men  had  been  murdered  in  that  section  within  a year’s 
time,  without  any  considerable  number  of  the  murder- 


92 


RECONSTRUCTION 


ers  having  been  brought  to  justice.  And  it  was  asserted 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  deserted 
the  party  of  the  Union,  the  party  which  had  elevated 
him  to  the  chief  magistracy  of  the  land,  and  was  now 
conspiring  with  his  old  party  friends,  the  Democrats,  in 
both  the  North  and  the  South,  to  drive  the  Republican 
party  from  power  and  restore  the  regime  of  the  Democ- 
racy of  1860. 

At  this  moment  a horrible  tragedy  was  enacted  in 
New  Orleans  which  seemed  to  give  verification  to  some. 
The  New  if  not  all,  of  these  statements.  It  seems 
Orleans  not.  iate  Confederate  leaders  resident  in 

Louisiana,  having  received  pardon  from  the  President 
of  the  United  States  upon  fulfilling  the  conditions  of 
the  President’s  amnesty  proclamation,  had  got  posses- 
sion in  1864  of  the  reconstructed  “ State  ” govern- 
ment of  Louisiana,  with  the  exception  of  the  governor- 
ship and  some  of  the  judicial  offices.  The  constitution 
of  1864,  made  by  sincere  Union  men,  did  not  exactly 
suit  them,  and  the  legislature  in  the  spring  of  1866  took 
into  consideration  a bill  for  calling  another  convention 
together  for  the  purpose  of  framing  a new  constitution, 
but  the  Administration  at  Washington  frowned  upon 
the  movement  and  the  legislature  abandoned  it.  In  like 
manner,  the  men  who  formed  and  established  the  con- 
stitution of  1864  were  displeased  with  the  fact  that  the 
“ State”  government  under  it  had  been  captured  at  the 
polls  by  the  old  electorate  of  Louisiana,  reinstated 
through  the  President’s  amnesty.  They  also  wanted  to 
change  the  constitution,  to  so  change  it  as  to  create 
an  electorate  which  would  bring  them  back  into  power 
again.  This  meant  negro  suffrage.  Just  before  the  con- 
vention of  1864  adjourned,  it  passed  a resolution  vesting 
in  the  presiding  officer  of  the  convention  the  power,  and 
imposing  on  him  the  duty,  of  reconvoking  the  conven- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  93 

tion  in  case  the  constitution  framed  by  it  should  not 
be  ratified  at  the  polls,  or  for  any  other  necessary  reason, 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  such  measures  as  might  be 
needful  for  forming  civil  government  in  Louisiana. 

Of  course,  when  the  constitution  framed  by  the  con- 
vention was  adopted  by  popular  vote  and  a “ State  ” 
government  was  set  up  under  it,  common  sense  and 
common  honesty  would  hold  that  the  convention  had 
been  finally  dissolved,  no  matter  how  the  wording  of  the 
resolution  might  be  forced  in  the  opposite  direction. 
The  men  of  “’64”  saw  in  this  wording  their  only 
chance,  however,  to  rescue  the  “ State  ” government 
from  the  hands  of  the  amnestied  electorate,  and  in  their 
desperation  they  were  determined  to  attempt  to  make 
use  of  it.  A number  of  the  members  of  the  old  conven- 
tion got  together  informally  on  the  26th  of  June.  The 
president  of  the  old  convention  did  not  call  them  to- 
gether, and  he  would  not  preside  at  the  informal  meet- 
ing. He  made  some  trivial  excuse  ; but  there  cannot 
be  much  doubt  in  regard  to  his  real  reason.  This  in- 
formal meeting  then  proceeded  to  elect  a pro  tempore 
president.  Judge  Howell,  an  office-holder  under  the 
constitution  of  1864.  It  was  this  man  who  issued  the 
proclamation  of  July  7th,  reconvoking  the  old  con- 
vention of  1864.  The  time  appointed  by  him  was  the 
30th  of  July  at  noon,  and  the  place  designated  by  him 
was  the  Mechanics’  Institute  Building  at  New  Orleans. 
The  men  called  together  were  the  members  of  the  old 
convention,  but  to  provide  for  any  vacancies  that 
might  have  happened  or  might  happen  in  the  former 
membership  of  this  old  body,  Judge  Howell  called  on 
the  Governor,  Mr.  Wells,  to  issue  writs  of  election. 
The  governor  did  so,  and  ordered  an  election  of  such 
delegates  to  be  held  September  3d.  He  thus  mani- 
fested his  approval  of  the  movement. 


94 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Naturally  the  party  of  the  amnestied  viewed  this 
scheme  for  depriving  them  of  the  “ State”  government 
by  means  of  a new  constitution,  framed  by  a defunct 
convention,  and  certain  to  contain  a provision  for  negro 
suffrage,  with  the  most  intense  hostility.  They  were  not 
placated  either  by  being  referred  to  the  consideration 
that  the  constitution  framed  by  this  convention  must  be 
submitted  to  the  suffrages  of  the  existing  electorate,  and 
must  be  ratified  by  a majority  of  the  same,  before  it 
could  be  put  into  operation.  They  had  a suspicion  that 
the  whole  thing  was  instigated  by  the  wicked  Republi- 
cans at  the  North,  and  that  the  voting  upon  such  a pro- 
posed constitution  would  be  controlled  by  them  through 
the  military  of  the  United  States  Government. 

They,  therefore,  resolved  to  nip  the  plan  in  the  bud 
by  preventing  the  assembly  of  the  convention,  or  forc- 
ing it  to  disperse  if  it  did  assemble.  The  mayor  of  the 
city,  Mr.  Monroe,  the  same  who  was  mayor  when  the 
Union  army  entered  the  city  in  1862,  applied  to  the 
General  in  command  of  the  United  States  troops  in 
Louisiana,  General  Absalom  Baird,  to  know  what  atti- 
tude the  military  authorities  would  take  toward  the 
convention,  and  informed  General  Baird  that  he  in- 
tended to  disperse  the  convention  if  it  should  attempt 
to  assemble  without  having  the  approval  of  these  au- 
thorities. General  Baird  was  acting  for  General  Sheri- 
dan, who  was  absent  from  his  post,  and  he  replied  with 
much  more  caution  than  he  would  probably  have  done 
had  he  been  alone  responsible.  He  told  Mayor  Mon- 
roe that  he  thought  the  Governor  of  the  “ State,” 
rather  than  the  mayor  of  the  city,  was  the  man  to 
interfere  with  the  assembly  of  a body  professing  to  be 
a “State  ” convention,  if  there  was  to  be  any  interfer- 
ence at  all,  and  he  gave  the  mayor  to  understand  that 
his  proposed  course  might  be  perilous.  This  was  the 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  95 

25th  of  July.  Two  days  later  the  mayor  went  again  to 
the  General,  this  time  accompanied  by  the  Lieutenant- 
Governor,  who  was  of  the  party  of  the  amnestied.  He 
now  told  General  Baird  that  the  police  would  not  un- 
dertake to  prevent  the  assembly  of  the  convention,  or 
disperse  its  members  when  assembled,  but  that  its 
members  would  be  indicted  by  the  grand  jury  and  ar- 
rested by  the  sheriff.  The  General  seemed  to  think 
that  the  convention  could  lawfully  assemble,  but  agreed 
with  the  mayor  and  Lieutenant-Governor  that  both  he 
and  they  would  request  instructions  from  Washington. 

The  General  applied  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  the 
mayor  applied  to  the  President.  The  General  informed 
the  Secretary  of  the  movement  to  assemble  a conven- 
tion ; that  it  had  the  approval  of  the  Governor ; that 
the  Lieutenant-Governor  and  the  municipal  authorities 
considered  it  unlawful  and  proposed  to  prevent  it  by 
arresting  the  delegates  ; that  he  had  declared  to  them 
that  he  would  not  permit  them  to  do  this,  unless  the 
President  should  so  instruct  him  ; and  he  asked  for 
orders,  in  the  premises,  by  telegraph.  The  Lieutenant- 
Governor  and  the  Attorney-General  of  the  “ State”  in- 
formed the  President  of  the  movement  to  assemble  the 
old  convention  ; informed  him  that  negroes  were  assem- 
bling, incendiary  speeches  were  being  made  calling  them 
to  arm  themselves,  and  the  President  was  being  de- 
nounced ; that  the  Governor  was  in  sympathy  with  the 
movement ; that  the  matter  was  before  the  grand  jury; 
and  that  it  was  contemplated  to  have  the  members  of  the 
convention  arrested  by  criminal  process  ; and  they  asked 
the  President  to  inform  them  whether  the  military 
authorities  would  interfere  to  prevent  the  execution  of 
the  processes  of  the  criminal  court. 

Secretary  Stanton  did  not  reply  to  General  Baird’s  ap- 
plication at  all.  He  did  not  even  communicate  the  Gen- 


96 


RECONSTRUCTION 


eral’s  application  to  the  President.  He  afterward  ex- 
plained that  he  did  not  consider  that  Baird’s  telegram 
required  any  reply.  Baird  had  said  in  his  despatch  that 
he  had  informed  the  Lieutenant-Governor  and  the  city 
authorities  that  he  would  not  allow  them  to  arrest  the 
delegates  and  break  up  the  convention  unless  instructed 
to  do  so  by  the  President.  The  Secretary  did  not  pro- 
pose to  send  the  General  any  such  orders,  or  to  allow 
any  such  to  be  transmitted  to  him  from  the  President 
through  the  War  Department,  and  so  the  Secretary 
thought  it  best  to  let  the  matter  rest  where  the  General 
had  placed  it.  He  did  not  know  that  the  President 
had  been  applied  to  by  the  other  side,  and  the  President 
did  not  inform  the  Secretary  of  the  despatch  which  he 
had  received.  The  confidence  between  the  two  men 
had  been  already  so  largely  destroyed  as  to  prevent  even 
consultation  upon  these  grave  subjects. 

The  President,  on  the  other  hand,  answered  the  appli- 
cation made  to  him.  He  telegraphed  to  the  Lieuten- 
ant-Governor that  the  military  would  be  expected  to 
sustain,  and  not  to  obstruct,  or  interfere  with,  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  criminal  court.  He  did  not  send  any 
orders  to  General  Baird,  however.  Whether  the  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor showed  his  telegram  from  the  Presi- 
dent to  General  Baird  or  not  is  not  positively  known, 
so  far  as  the  writer  of  these  pages  has  been  able  to  dis- 
cover, but  it  is  probable  that  he  did. 

It  was  certainly  then  the  understanding  on  all  sides, 
at  least,  that  the  “ State  ” and  municipal  authorities 
would  deal  with  the  delegates  to  the  convention,  if 
they  interfered  with  them  at  all,  through  the  grand 
jury  and  the  officers  of  the  criminal  court,  and  not 
through  the  police.  This  did  not  mean,  of  course,  that 
the  police  should  not  be  present  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  convention  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  pub- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  97 

lie  peace.  They  were  ordered  to  assemble  at  the  sta- 
tions on  the  morning  of  the  30th  (July)  and  to  bring 
their  arms.  According  to  General  Sheridan’s  report  to 
the  President,  the  riot  was  occasioned  by  the  marching 
of  a procession  of  negroes,  about  one  hundred  strong 
and  partly  armed,  through  several  of  the  streets  to  the 
locality  of  the  convention.  It  occurred  about  an  hour 
after  the  members  of  the  convention  had  assembled. 
Naturally  a number  of  people,  mostly  of  the  lower 
orders,  gathered  on  the  sidewalks  of  the  streets  through 
which  the  procession  passed.  Hooting  and  jeering  fol- 
lowed. Then  a shot  was  fired,  probably  by  a negro  in 
the  procession.  Then  other  shots  followed  and  the 
crowd  rushed  after  the  procession,  which  soon  arrived  in 
front  of  the  building  in  which  the  convention  sat. 
Brickbats  now  flew  from  each  side  and  the  riot  was  in 
full  progress  when  the  police  appeared  on  the  scene. 
The  procession  rushed  into  the  building,  leaving  a few 
of  its  members  outside.  One  of  these  and  a policeman 
came  to  blows,  when  another  shot  was  fired,  upon 
which  the  policemen  began  firing  through  the  windows 
of  the  building.  After  a few  moments  a white  flag  was 
displayed  from  one  of  the  windows,  whereupon  the  fir- 
ing ceased  and  the  policemen  rushed  into  the  building. 
Once  in  the  building  they  fired  their  revolvers  upon 
the  persons  present  indiscriminately  and  with  terrible 
effect.  The  persons  who  succeeded  in  escaping  from 
the  building  were  also  fired  on  by  the  police  and  by 
citizens,  and  many  were  killed  or  wounded.  Nearly 
two  hundred  persons  were  killed  or  injured,  mostly 
negroes,  but  some  whites,  and  among  them  some  mem- 
bers of  the  proposed  convention.  There  were  no  United 
States  troops  in  the  city  at  the  hour  of  the  riot,  their 
barracks  being  outside.  General  Baird  had  ordered 
four  companies  to  take  position  near  the  place  of  the 


98 


RECONSTRUCTION 


convention,  but  owing  to  the  fact  that  he  had  got 
the  impression  that  the  convention  would  assemble  at 
6 p.m.,  he  had  ordered  them  to  repair  to  the  assigned 
position  at  5 p.m.  They,  consequently,  did  not  arrive 
until  the  riot  was  over  and  the  convention  was  dis- 
persed. 

Each  party  considered  the  other  the  aggressor.  The 
Republicans  of  the  North  viewed  the  massacre  as  a new 
rebellion,  while  the  amnestied  Southerners  considered 
the  riot  the  result  of  a justified  resistance  to  an  attempt 
to  force  negro  suffrage  and  then  negro  rule  upon  them. 
It  is  very  nearly  certain  that  the  first  shot  was  fired  by 
a negro,  but  this  would  not  justify  the  wholesale  mas- 
sacre executed  by  the  police.  It  could,  therefore,  be 
held  by  the  Republicans  with  a great  show  of  truth 
that  the  public  authorities  of  the  reconstructed  “ State  ” 
government  of  Louisiana  not  only  would  not  extend 
the  equal  protection  of  the  laws  to  all  persons,  but 
would  themselves  deprive  persons  even  of  life  without 
due  process  of  law. 

•The  issue  of  the  campaign  of  1866  was  thus  made  up. 
It  was  simply  whether  Congress  should  reconstruct 
. , the  President’s  reconstructed  “ States,”  or 

The  issue  of  # 7 

Reconstruc-  rather  should  pronounce  the  President’s  Re- 
ti on  in  the  . * _ 

campaign  of  construction,  and  the  Reconstruction  ef- 
fected by  the  amnestied  Southerners,  null 
and  void,  and  proceed  to  do  the  work  cle  novo,  with  the 
purpose  of  creating  adequate  guarantee  for  life  and 
property  and  for  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws  to  all. 

Although  it  was  not  a Presidential  year,  the  election 
of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  with 
such  a problem  to  deal  with,  and  the  election  of  “ State  ” 
legislatures  which  would  consider  the  question  of 
adopting  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  made  the  canvass  of  1866  a truly  national 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  99 


one.  Four  National  Conventions  were  held  during  the 
summer  and  early  autumn,  two  of  each  party. 

The  Administration  party  led  off  with  their  great 
meeting  in  Philadelphia  on  the  14th  of  August.  There 
were  a few  prominent  Republicans  among  the  delegates, 
such  as  Montgomery  Blair,  Raymond,  Dix,  Cowan,  Doo- 
little and  Browning,  but  the  vast  majority  of  them  were 
Democrats.  All  of  the  Southern  delegates  were  such. 
The  larger  number  of  the  Northern  Democrats  were  con- 
servative men  of  the  stamp  and  style  of  R.  C.  The  Nation 

Winthrop,  W.  B.  Lawrence,  S.  J.  Tilden,  ^0ng00“vtehe 
J.  P.  Stockton,  J.  E.  English  and  Reverdy  summer  of 
Johnson,  but  there  were  also  present  men  of 
more  radical  anti-national  creed,  like  Fernando  Wood, 
J.  G.  Sinclair,  and  James  Campbell.  Even  Clement 
L.  Yallandigham  presented  himself  as  a delegate. 
There  were  many,  however,  who  objected  to  his  pres- 
ence and  he  withdrew.  The  doctrines  put  forward 
at  this  meeting  were  simply  those  of  the  President’s 
Reconstruction  policy,  the  doctrines  that  the  “States” 
in  our  Federal  system  are  indestructible  and  immacu- 
late, and  under  submission  to  national  authority  al- 
ways possessed  of  the  rights  of  local  self-government 
and  of  representation  in  the  National  Government. 
These  doctrines  were  developed  into  such  extreme 
forms  of  statement,  and  such  extreme  results  were  bold- 
ly accepted  as  their  logical  consequences,  that  the  cause 
of  the  Administration  was  damaged  rather  than  helped 
at  the  North  by  the  work  and  experiences  of  the  con- 
vention. 

Inasmuch  as  there  had  been  a great  display  of  har- 
mony between  the  leading  men  of  the  South  and  the 
Northern  delegates  in  the  convention  of  the  14th  of 
August,  making  it  appear  that  the  Democrats  were  the 
party  of  peace  and  reunion,  while  the  Republicans  were 


100 


RECONSTRUCTION 


in  favor  of  a continuation  of  the  hostile  status,  the 
Southern  Republicans,  or  as  they  called  themselves 
the  loyal  Union  men  of  the  South,  assembled  in  con- 
siderable numbers  in  Philadelphia  on  the  3d  of  Sep- 
tember, for  the  purpose  of  conferring  with  the  leading 
Republicans  of  the  North  in  regard  to  the  condition  of 
things  in  the  South.  Such  men  as  John  Minor  Botts, 
William  G.  Brownlow,  George  W.  Paschal,  Thomas  J. 
Durant,  M.  J.  Safford,  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Lewis  M. 
Kenzie,  G.  W.  Ashburn,  and  many  more  of  almost  equal 
reputation  came  to  counsel  with  the  leaders  of  the  Re- 
publican party.  Many  of  the  most  important  of  these 
were  there,  Trumbull,  Greeley,  Morton,  Chandler, 
Schenck,  Schurz,  Matthews,  Curtin,  Cameron,  Gerry, 
Speed,  the  ex-Attorney-General,  and  Creswell.  These 
are  only  a few  names  of  the  eminent  men  who  were 
present. 

The  delegates  separated  into  two  bodies,  one  body 
comprehending  the  representatives  from  the  South, 
and  the  other  those  from  the  North.  This  was  done  in 
order  to  leave  the  Southerners  free  from  undue  North- 
ern influence.  Mr.  Speed  presided  over  the  Southern  as- 
sembly, and  in  his  opening  words  declared  the  purpose 
of  the  convention  to  be  to  determine  and  proclaim 
whether  the  assertion  of  the  late  Confederates  that  their 
constitutional  rights  were  being  denied  them  in  not  ad- 
mitting their  Representatives-  and  Senators-elect  to  seats 
in  Congress  was  true,  or  whether,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  claim  of  the  emancipated  that  their  civil  and  nat- 
ural rights  were  being  denied  them  was  true.  He  soon 
left  no  doubt  upon  the  minds  of  his  hearers  as  to  his 
own  view  and  belief,  and  he  denounced  the  President’s 
reconstruction  work,  both  in  principle  and  results,  most 
roundly.  On  account  of  the  intimate  relation  in  which 
he  had  stood  to  the  President  as  his  legal  adviser,  and  on 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  101 

account  of  the  fact  that  he  was  a citizen  of  one  of  the  old 
slave-holding  “ States/’  his  words  had  tremendous  effect 
in  steeling  the  purpose  of  the  Eepublicans  of  the  North. 

Under  the  inspiration  of  Mr.  Speed’s  speech,  the 
Southern  convention  framed  and  fulminated  an  address 
which  arraigned  the  President  as  almost  a traitor  to  his 
party  and  the  Union,  and  as  a friend  of  rebels  and  of 
sympathizers  with  rebels,  described  the  results  of  his 
Eeconstruction  policy  and  acts  as  most  deplorable,  and 
urged  the  speedy  adoption  of  the  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  the  only  possible  cure 
for  the  evils  which  were  afflicting  the  country.  This 
address  made  up  the  issues  of  the  campaign.  The  di- 
viding line  of  the  parties  now  separated  those  who  fa- 
vored the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment from  those  who  did  not.  The  issue  was  simple, 
and  the  vote  upon  it  was  decisive,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  Administration  party  now  attempted  to  divide 
the  late  soldiers,  as  it  had  attempted  to  divide  the 
Eepublicans,  with  but  little  better  effect.  They  got  to- 
gether a convention  of  the  veterans  at  Cleveland,  Ohio, 
on  the  17th  of  September,  and  had  the  venerable  Gen- 
eral Wool  preside  over  it.  There  were  many  good  men 
and  true  present,  among  them  Gordon  Granger,  Eous- 
seau,  Custer,  McClernand,  and  Thomas  Ewing  ; and 
they  accused  the  Eepublicans  of  attempting  to  stir  up 
another  civil  war  over  the  question  of  negro  suffrage, 
and  urged  their  old  comrades  to  insist  that  the  status  of 
peace,  and  all  the  consequences  thereof,  existed  and  must 
be  preserved. 

This  movement  was  met  on  the  other  side  by  the  as- 
sembly of  a Eepublican  soldier  convention  at  Pittsburg 
on  the  25th  and  26th  of  September,  for  the  purpose  of 
upholding  Congress  in  its  fight  with  the  Administration 
over  the  question  of  Eeconstruction.  The  convention 


102 


RECONSTRUCTION 


was  presided  over  by  General  J.  D.  Cox,  and  a host  of  the 
most  capable  officers  of  the  armies  of  the  Union,  lately 
disbanded,  participated  in  its  deliberations  and  resolves. 
They  denounced  the  President’s  Reconstruction  policy, 
pronounced  their  adherence  to  Congress,  and  declared 
for  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment as  the  indispensable  measure  for  the  re-establish- 
ment of  peace,  justice  and  union. 

During  the  summer  and  autumn  the  orators  and  pol- 
iticians of  both  parties  pursued  the  canvass  upon  the 
The  canvass  basis  of  the  doctrines  put  forth  by  the  con- 
of  1866.  ventions.  A very  large  number,  an  unusually 
large  number,  of  the  leading  men  of  the  country,  took 
part  in  the  great  debate.  Even  the  President  of  the 
United  States  took  part  in  it. 

On  the  28th  of  August  he  started  from  Washington 
to  go  to  Chicago  to  be  present  at  the  laying  of  the  cor- 
ner-stone of  the  Douglas  monument.  He 
arouncTthe  took  with  him  General  Grant,  Admiral  Far- 
ragut,  three  of  his  Cabinet  officers,  Seward, 
Randall  and  Welles,  and  a large  number  of  lesser  lights. 
Crowds  gathered  at  all  the  principal  stopping-places, 
and  the  President  spoke  to  them  in  defence  of  his  pol- 
icy of  Reconstruction  and  of  his  acts  in  the  execution 
of  it.  He  denounced  his  enemies  and  opponents  bit- 
terly, and  descended  to  undignified  and  even  vulgar 
altercation  with  individuals  in  the  crowds.  In  his 
speech  at  St.  Louis,  on  September  28th,  his  hot  temper 
betrayed  him  into  an  attempt  to  throw  upon  Congress, 
the  radical  Congress,  as  he  called  it,  the  blame  for  the 
New  Orleans  riot,  and  he  went  to  the  imprudent  ex- 
treme of  almost  making  an  excuse  or  a quasi-excuse 
for  the  riot.  The  whole  performance  of  the  President 
upon  the  journey  was  termed  “swinging  around  the 
circle,”  and  it  both  degraded  the  great  office  and  its 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  103 

incumbent,  and  injured  the  prospects  of  the  Admin- 
istration party  in  the  campaign. 

The  President  had  on  the  20th  day  of  August,  a 
week  before  setting  out  upon  his  tour,  finally  pro- 
claimed the  insurrection  and  Civil  War  at  The  Presi- 
an  end  in  every  part  of  the  country.  He  proclamation 
had,  on  the  2d  day  of  April  preceding,  de-  civi™Var 
dared  the  insurrection  at  an  end  everywhere  ended- 
except  in  Texas,  and  the  proclamation  of  August  20th 
gave  official  witness  to  its  cessation  in  Texas.  It  is  cer- 
tainly a prerogative  of  the  President  to  proclaim  the  ces- 
sation of  opposition  to  his  execution  of  the  laws  of  the 
Union,  and  then  to  execute  the  same  thereafter  through 
civil,  instead  of  military,  officers.  If  the  President 
had  meant  no  more  than  this  by  his  proclamations  of 
the  termination  of  the  insurrection,  the  position  would 
have  been  unassailable.  But  he  evidently  intended  his 
proclamations  as  furnishing  a basis  for  his  Reconstruc- 
tion work,  or  at  any  rate  as  furnishing  a great  reason 
for  the  general  recognition  of  the  validity  of  that  work. 
This  we  can  easily  gather  from  the  speeches  he  made  as 
he  “ swung  around  the  circle  ” in  the  campaign  of  1866. 
He  felt  that  he  had  solid  ground  under  his  feet,  and 
did  not  appreciate  the  fact  that  he  was  resting  one  of  his 
doctrines  upon  another,  the  latter  being  no  more  self- 
evident  than  the  former.  He  felt  quite  sure  of  vic- 
tory, until  what  were  called  the  “ October  States,”  at 
that  time,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana  and  The  October 
Iowa,  held  their  elections.  The  two  “ Sep-  e,ections- 
tember  States,”  Vermont  and  Maine,  had  largely  in- 
creased their  Republican  majorities,  which  the  President 
had  probably  expected  and  allowed  for,  but  when  the 
four  “ October  States  ” gave  only  twelve  seats  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  the  Democrats  and  nearly 
fifty  to  the  Republicans,  it  was  pretty  clearly  revealed 


104 


RECONSTRUCTION 


that  the  Administration  was  on  the  eve  of  a terrible 
defeat.  It  was  as  overwhelming  as  these  figures  indi- 
The  Repub-  cated.  The  final  results  showed  that  the  Re- 
inCathetneniIech  publicans  had  elected  one  hundred  and  forty - 
tions  of  1866.  three  0f  their  candidates  to  seats  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  while  the  Democrats  had  succeeded  in 
securing  only  forty-nine  seats.  With  the  exception  of 
Delaware,  Maryland  and  Kentucky,  all  the  “ States” 
represented  in  Congress  had  given  the  Republican  party 
strong  majorities.  The  strength  of  the  Democratic  party 
was  again  in  the  South,  where  the  Democratic  candidates 
for  any  kind  of  office  had  almost  universally  succeeded. 
In  the  Senate  the  Republicans  constituted  more  than  a 
two-thirds  majority  of  the  members,  and  with  their 
almost  three-fourths  majority  in  the  House,  there  could 
be  no  question  that,  in  a contest  between  the  President 
and  Congress,  the  former  would  be  obliged  to  yield. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  however,  the  President,  in 
his  Message  to  Congress  of  December  3d,  returned  to 
The  Presi-  the  contest-  He  reargued  his  case  from 
dent’s  Mes-  every  point  of  view,  and  with  both  modera- 

6 g g qJ  1)6*  **  x y 

cember  3d,  tion  and  great  force.  He  restated  what  had 
been  done  toward  Reconstruction,  declaring 
that  peace  had  been  restored  everywhere,  that  all  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  and  all  the  machinery  of  the 
United  States  Government  were  in  unimpeded  opera- 
tion everywhere  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  land,  and  that  loyal  “ State  ” governments  had  been 
restored  everywhere,  and  lacked  but  one  thing  of  com- 
pletion, viz.,  the  admission  of  Representatives  and  Sena- 
tors from  ten  of  the  eleven  “ States”  in  which  secession 
ordinances  had  been  passed  to  seats  in  Congress.  He 
contended  that  all  the  departments  of  the  United  States 
Government  had  proceeded  upon  the  view  that  the 
“ States”  were  indestructible — the  Congress,  in  the  dec- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  105 


laration,  at  the  outset,  that  the  war  was  not  to  be 
waged  in  any  spirit  of  oppression,  nor  for  any  purpose 
of  conquest  or  subjugation,  nor  purpose  of  overthrowing 
or  interfering  with  the  rights  or  established  institutions 
of  the  “ States  ” which  were  the  scene  of  rebellion,  but 
to  defend  and  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  all  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  to 
preserve  the  Union,  with  all  the  dignity,  equality,  and 
rights  of  the  several  States  unimpaired,  and  in  many 
other  acts  and  resolutions  ; the  Judiciary,  in  all  pro- 
ceedings alfecting  the  reconstruction  communities  as 
“ States  ” ; and  the  Executive,  in  the  entire  plan  of  Re- 
construction created  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and  followed  out  by 
'himself.  He  further  contended  that  in  recognizing 
these  “ States  ” as  restored  to  their  former  relations, 
Congress  was  not  running  any  risk  of  having  disloyal 
men  thrust  into  the  legislative  chambers  of  the  nation, 

, because  each  House  of  Congress  could  reject  members- 
elect  on  account  of  disloyalty,  and  could  continue  to  re- 
ject until  the  constituencies  should  send  up  such  persons 
as  the  House  could  approve,  and  could  expel  any  member 
whose  conduct  should  reveal  disloyalty.  He  therefore 
urged  Congress  to  acknowledge  the  Reconstruction  of 
the  “ States  ” lately  in  rebellion,  in  principle,  and  to 
apply  the  powers  of  the  two  Houses  in  regard  to  the 
•^elections,  returns  and  qualifications  of  their  respective 
members  to  the  individual  persons  elected  to  seats. 

The  President’s  argument  fell,  however,  upon  deaf 
ears.  This  was,  it  is  true,  the  second  session  of  the 
Thirty-ninth  Congress,  and  was  not,  there-  in  effective- 
fore,  composed  of  the  persons  just  elected  ; 
but  the  influence  of  the  recent  elections  flrgnment- 
over  its  members  had  been  to  cow  the  conservatives, 
strengthen  the  radicals,  and  cause  the  wavering  to  in- 
cline to  the  side  of  the  extremists.  They  took  the  ver- 


106 


RECONSTRUCTION 


diet  of  the  people  to  be  that  Congress  should  ignore  the 
President’s  work  in  Reconstruction,  develop  a plan  of 
its  own,  put  it  into  operation,  and  base  it  upon  a newly 
constructed  electorate  in  the  South,  in  which  the  lately 
emancipated  should  participate.  The  attitude  of  the 
legislatures  of  the  President’s  reconstructed  “ States  ” 
in  regard  to  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  also 
strengthened  them  greatly  in  this  view  and  purpose. 
Rejectionof  Before  the  first  day  of  January,  1867,  all  of 
these  except  three  had  rejected  it  by  over- 
whelming votes,  and  these  three  followed  the 
same  course  a little  later.  It  was  said  and 
believed  in  Washington  that  they  had  re- 
jected the  proposed  Amendment  contemptuously,  and 
under  the  advice  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
It  was  the  angry  rejection  of  the  proposed  Amendment 
The  effect  which  did  more  than  anything  and  every - 
temperof  the  thing  else  to  convince  the  people  of  the 
North.  North  that  Reconstruction  must  be  now  un- 

dertaken by  Congress,  and  must  proceed  upon  the  basis 
of  a new  electorate  at  the  South  which  Congress  should 
create. 


the  proposed 
Fourte  enth 
A m e ndment 
by  the  legis- 
latures of  the 
Reconstruct- 
ed “ States.” 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  ( Completed ) 

Negro  Suffrage  in  the  District  of  Columbia— The  First  Attempts  at 
Impeachment — Stories  of  Outrages  at  the  South — The  Recon- 
struction Bill — Passage  of  the  Bill  by  the  House — The  Bill 
as  Finally  Agreed  upon — The  Condition  that  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  must  be  Ratified  by  a Sufficient  Number  of  States 
to  make  it  a Part  of  the  Constitution — The  Tenure-of-Office 
Bill — The  Supplementary  Reconstruction  Bill — The  Assign- 
ment of  the  Commanding  Generals  to  the  Military  Districts 
Created  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts — The  Re-establishment  of 
Martial  Law  in  the  South — The  President’s  Instructions  to  the 
Generals  in  Interpretation  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts — The 
Congressional  Interpretation  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts — The 
President’s  Veto  of  the  Bill  Interpreting  the  Reconstruction 
Acts — The  Veto  Overridden — The  Suspension  of  Stanton  from 
Office. 

The  Congress  had  but  just  put  itself  in  working  order, 
when  a bill  was  introduced  and  passed  extending  the 
suffrage  to  negroes  in  the  District  of  Colum-  Negr0  guf. 
bia.  The  Republicans  reasoned  that  they  D?snict “tco- 
could  not  with  good  grace  force  negro  suf-  lnmbia- 
frage  on  the  South  before  establishing  it  in  the  District, 
and  that  the  District  was  the  best  place  in  the  country 
to  try  the  experiment  first.  The  bill  went  to  the  Presi- 
dent on  the  26th  of  December,  six  days  after  the  ad- 
journment of  Congress  for  the  Christmas  vacation,  al- 
though it  had  passed  the  Houses  on  the  13th  and  14th. 
The  President  held  it  until  January  5th,  1867,  and  then 
returned  it  to  the  Senate  with  his  veto. 

107 


108 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  Message  was  a strong  paper,  and  to  an  impartial 
mind  at  this  day  it  is  a convincing  paper.  There  is  no 
The  Presi-  questi°n  that  Congress  had  the  constitutional 
fhe'bVestab-  Power  establish  negro  suffrage  in  the  Dis- 
lishmg  negro  trict.  The  President  did  not  dispute  that. 

suffrage m . . . ,A 

the  District  of  He  simply  argued  that  m legislating  for  the 

District,  Congress  stood  in  a relation  to  the  in- 
nabitants  of  the  District  analogous  to  that  which  the 
legislature  of  a “ State  ” bore  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
“ State,”  and  that  as  the  legislature  of  a “ State”  would 
not  act  in  opposition  to  the  expressed  will  of  a large 
majority  of  the  voters  in  the  “State,”  so  Congress  in 
legislating  for  the  District  of  Columbia  ought  not  to  dis- 
regard the  expressed  will  of  a large  majority  of  the  voters 
in  the  District.  He  then  referred  to  the  vote  of  the  Dis- 
trict upon  this  very  subject,  taken  in  December  of  1865, 
only  one  year  before,  when  out  of  a poll  of  6,556,  one  of 
the  largest  votes  ever  cast  in  the  Capital  city,  only  thirty- 
five  ballots  were  cast  for  negro  suffrage,  and  in  George- 
town out  of  a poll  of  813  only  one  ballot  was  cast  for 
negro  suffrage.  He  further  argued  that  Congress  ought 
not  to  make  the  District  a place  for  trying  political  ex- 
periments of  so  grave  a character  as  conferring  suffrage, 
the  highest  privilege  of  American  citizenship,  upon  a 
race  of  men  just  emerging  from  the  ignorance  and  vice 
attendant  on  a condition  of  slavery.  And  he  finally 
asked  the  Congress  to  reconsider  an  act  which  appeared 
to  him  to  be  the  degradation  and  possibly  the  destruc- 
tion of  American  suffrage. 

There  is  no  gainsaying  that  this  was  good  reasoning, 
but  Congress  was  in  no  frame  of  mind  to  give  ear  to  the 
counsel  of  the  President.  It  took  the  ground  that  in 
legislating  for  the  District  it  was  acting  for  the  whole 
United  States  and  not  simply  for  the  inhabitants  of  the 
District,  and  that  there  was  no  place  in  the  entire  coun- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  101) 


try  where  political  experiments  could  be  more  safely 
tried  than  in  the  District,  since  Congress  had  plenary 
legislative  power  in  the  District  and  could  discover  and 
correct  mistakes  and  defects  in  its  legislation  more  easily 
and  promptly  there  than  anywhere  else. 

Both  Houses  repassed  the  bill  over  the  President's  veto 
by  the  necessary  two-thirds  majority,  the  Senate  on  the 
7th  of  January  and  the  House  on  the  8th,  and  negro 
suffrage  was  established  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
The  President’s  veto  so  angered  some  of  the  The  at 
extremists  that  resolutions  of  impeachment  temp^at^ni- 
were  introduced  into  the  House,  and  a resolu- 
tion for  the  appointment  of  a committee  to  inquire 
whether  there  were  reasons  for  impeachment  was  actu- 
ally carried,  and  a committee  was  appointed.  The 
committee  sought  everywhere  and  in  every  way  for 
grounds  upon  which  to  arraign  the  President  at  the  bar 
of  the  Senate,  but  for  the  moment  it  failed. 

At  the  same  time  the  halls  of  Congress  were  ringing 
with  the  most  extravagant  tales  of  outrages  against  the 
negroes  and  loyal  men  of  the  South  at  the  storieg  of 
hands  of  the  late  rebels,  and  of  the  collusion  outrages  at  the 
of  the  newly  established  “ State  ” govern- 
ments with  the  same.  In  addition  to  this,  the  other 
three  of  the  ten  newly  constructed  “State”  legislatures 
rejected  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment,  two  of 
them  by  unanimous  vote,  and  the  other  by  every  vote 
but  one. 

While,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Congress  did  not  pass 
the  proposition  to  make  the  acceptance  of  the  proposed 
Fourteenth  Amendment  by  the  newly  reconstructed 
“ States  ” the  condition  of  recognizing  them  as  “ States  ” 
of  the  Union,  and  admitting  the  Senators-  and  Repre- 
sentatives-elect  from  them  to  seats  in  Congress,  yet  the 
popular  mind  had  so  conceived  the  matter,  and  the 


110 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  Four- 
teenth Amend- 
ment as  the 
condition  o f 
recogn  i z i n g 
the  revival  of 
statehood. 


order  of  events  in  the  case  of  Tennessee  had  given  this 
conception  the  force  of  precedent.  The  Republicans  in 
Congress  and  the  North  could  now  fairly  claim  that  they 
had  offered  to  recognize  the  President’s  reconstructed 
“ States/’  although  these  bodies  were  without  consti- 
tutional warrant,  upon  the  most  moderate  terms  which 
consideration  for  the  necessary  consequences 
of  the  Civil  War  and  the  victory  of  the  Union 
would  allow,  and  that  their  offer  had  been 
rejected  in  every  case,  except,  of  course,  that 
of  Tennessee — rejected  by  such  majorities 
and  in  such  a manner  as  to  make  the  rejection  amount 
to  defiance.  It  was  true  that  logically  and  constitu- 
tionally Congress  had  no  power  to  make  the  acceptance 
of  something  not  at  the  time  a part  of  the  Constitution 
a condition  for  the  admission  of  the  new  “ States,”  or 
the  readmission  of  old  “ States,”  into  the  Union  ; and 
Congress  had  not  done  this  formally.  It  is  also  true, 
both  in  good  logic  and  in  sound  constitutional  law, 
that  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  should  not 
have  been  submitted  at  all  to  bodies  that  were  not 
conventions  of  the  people  in,  or  legislatures  of,  “ States  ” 
in  the  Union.  Logically  and  constitutionally  the  whole 
thing  was  irregular.  But  it  was  as  it  was,  and  all  un- 
derstood that  the  way  to  cut  the  knot  was  for  the  legis- 
latures of  the  reconstructed  “ States  ” to  adopt  the  pro- 
posed Fourteenth  Amendment,  as  Tennessee  had  done. 
When  they  refused  to  do  so,  it  was  natural  and  it  was 
necessary  that  Congress  should  at  last  overturn  all  of 
the  President’s  proceedings  in  Reconstruction,  and  all 
of  the  proceedings  made  under  his  guidance,  and  begin 
de  novo,  and  upon  the  true  constitutional  principle  of 
the  exclusive  power  of  Congress  to  admit  new  “ States  ” 
into  the  Union,  or,  more  scientifically  expressed,  to 
create  new  States  or  control  their  creation  on  territory 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  111 


of  the  Union  in  which  loyal  civil  government  did  not 
exist. 

There  can  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  sound 
political  scientist  and  constitutional  lawyer  that  Con- 
gress was  in  the  right,  logically,  morally,  and  The  correct- 
legally,  in  insisting  upon  brushing  aside  the  Republican 
results  of  executive  Reconstruction  in  the  view- 
winter  of  1867,  and  beginning  the  work  itself  from  the 
bottom  up.  It  ought  to  have  done  so  in  1865.  It  ought 
to  have  created,  so  soon  as  armed  resistance  to  the  exe- 
cution of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  ceased,  regular 
Territorial  civil  governments  throughout  the  country 
which  had  been  in  insurrection,  and  then  have  admitted 
these  Territories  as  “ States  ” whenever  the  conditions 
warranting  the  same  should  have  been  attained.  The 
phantom  of  the  “ indestructible  State  ” had  too  strong 
an  influence  over  the  minds  of  all  at  that  moment  to 
admit  of  such  a solution  of  the  question.  But  after  the 
experiences  of  1865  and  1866,  and  the  discussions  in  the 
last  session  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  the  minds  of 
the  Republicans  at  least,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress, 
were  prepared  to  break  away  from  the  influence  of  this 
idea  and  to  view  the  process  of  Reconstruction  as  noth- 
ing but  the  admission  of  new  “ States”  into  the  Union, 
new  “ States  ” founded  on  territory  and  including  inhabi- 
I tants  that  had  indeed  once  formed  “ States,”  but  had 
renounced  Statehood  in  the  Union  through  disloyalty  to 
the  Union,  and  had  been  brought  back  to  the  position 
of  territories,  civilly  unorganized  in  local  instance,  but 
subject  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  central  Gov- 
ernment. From  such  a point  of  view,  the  method  of 
procedure  was  plain.  While  it  is  strange  that  the 
Congress  did  not  follow  this  course  in  1865,  it  is 
simply  astounding  that  it  made  such  a mess  of  it  in 
1867. 


112 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  Reconstruction  bill  was  presented  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  fifteen  on  Reconstruction  to  the  House  of  Rep- 
The  Recon-  resentatives  on  the  6th  of  February  by  Mr. 
etruction  bill.  Stevens.  It  was  a thoroughly  drastic  measure. 
Instead  of  creating  Territorial  civil  government  in  the 
usual  manner,  with  an  electorate  designated  by  Con- 
gress, and  with  powers  under  the  control  of  Congress, 
and  sustained,  if  necessary,  by  the  military  of  the 
United  States,  which  would  have  been  amply  sufficient 
to  meet  all  the  real  or  proper  exigencies  of  the  case, 
the  bill  began  by  declaring  that  the  pretended  “ State” 
governments  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  did  not 
protect  adequately  life  or  property,  but  countenanced 
and  encouraged  lawlessness  and  crime  ; and  that  it  was 
necessary  that  peace  and  good  order  should  be  enforced 
in  the  so-called  Confederate  States  until  loyal  “ State  ” 
governments  could  be  legally  established  therein  ; and 
then  went  on  to  enact  that  the  said  so-called  Confeder- 
ate States  should  be  divided  into  five  military  divisions 
and  made  subject  to  the  military  authority  of  the 
United  States,  Virginia  to  constitute  the  first  division. 
North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina  the  second,  Georgia, 
Alabama,  and  Florida  the  third,  Mississippi  and  Ar- 
kansas the  fourth,  and  Louisiana  and  Texas  the  fifth  ; 
that  the  General  of  the  army  should  assign  an  army 
officer  of  not  less  rank  than  a brigadier-general  to  the 
command  of  each  of  these  divisions,  and  detail  suffi- 
cient military  forces,  and  place  them  under  the  command 
of  each  of  said  generals,  to  enable  him  to  enforce  his 
authority  in  the  district  over  which  he  should  be  placed  ; 
that  these  commanders  might  use  civil  tribunals  in  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws  if  they  should  see  fit,  but  that, 
if  these  were  not  effective  they  might  institute  and 
govern  through  military  commissions  ; that  no  sentence 
of  these  commissions  should  be  executed  until  approved 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  113 

by  the  commanding  officer  of  the  district ; and  finally, 
that  the  United  States  courts  and  judges  should  issue 
no  writs  of  Habeas  Corpus  against  the  proceedings  and 
judgments  of  these  commissions. 

There  was  hardly  a line  in  the  entire  bill  which  would 
stand  the  test  of  the  Constitution.  In  the  first  place,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  or  any  other  ^ 
part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  defensible 
can  establish  martial  law  in  any  part  of  the  stitutionai 
territory  of  the  United  States  only  when  and  P°mto£view- 
where  there  is  armed  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  or  of  some  “State”  or  Territory 
whose  jurisdiction  is  being  defended  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States.  Such  was  not  the  condition  any- 
where in  the  South.  The  Executive  had  proclaimed 
that  such  resistance  had  ceased  everywhere  several 
months  before ; that  he  had  appointed  civil  officers 
throughout  the  South  for  the  execution  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  in  many  cases  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate  ; that  these  laws  were  in  operation 
everywhere ; and  that  the  United  States  courts  were 
open  everywhere  and  in  the  unhindered  discharge  of 
their  functions  and  duties.  It  was  not  pretended,  of 
course,  that  there  was  armed  resistance  to  the  execu- 
tion of  the  laws  of  the  reconstructed  “ States,”  and 
that  the  military  of  the  United  States  was  to  act  simply 
in  support  of  “State”  authority.  There  were  here  and 
there,  it  is  true,  some  of  the  remains  of  the  military 
authority  of  the  United  States,  exercised  during  the 
period  of  the  insurrection,  but  they  were  a very  poor 
basis  upon  which  to  found  a resumption  of  the  reign  of 
martial  law  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
South.  No  sane  and  just  mind  can  consider  for  a mo- 
ment such  a ground  as  sufficient  in  policy,  morals  or 
constitutional  law.  While  the  people  of  these  districts 


114 


RECONSTRUCTION 


which  had  attempted  to  secede  from  the  Union  had  for- 
feited their  rights  to  the  “ State  ” form  of  local  govern- 
ment, they  still  had,  after  they  had  ceased  from  armed 
resistance  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  the 
rights  guaranteed  to  the  criminal  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States — the  right  to  be  presented  by  a grand 
jury  and  tried  by  a petit  jury  in  the  civil  tribunals  of 
the  United  States,  under  the  ordinary  forms  and  guar- 
antees of  the  common  law,  even  though  the  crime 
charged  should  be  treason  itself. 

In  the  second  place,  the  hill  undertook  to  rob  the 
President  of  his  constitutional  prerogative  of  com- 
The  bill  in  man(lership-in-chief  over  the  army,  and  vest 
itB  attempt  to  the  same  in  the  General  of  the  army.  This 

rob  the  Presi-  . 

dent  of  hie  was  so  evident  that  no  one  could  fail  to  see 
m a n d e r-i  n-  that  it  was  a bill  directed  as  much  against 
chief-  the  powers  of  the  President  of  the  United 

States  as  against  the  late  Confederates  of  the  South. 

And  in  the  third  place,  the  bill  assumed  to  suspend 
the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  substantially,  while  the  Con- 
stitution forbids  this  to  be  done  by  any  part  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States,  except  in  time  of 
war  or  public  danger.  There  was  no  war,  and  to  say 
that  there  was  public  danger  of  the  character  meant  by 
the  constitutional  exception  was  to  exaggerate  the  con- 
dition of  things  entirely  beyond  all  fact  or  reason. 

The  bill  was  the  most  brutal  proposition  ever  intro- 
duced into  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  by  a re- 
t , sponsible  committee,  and  it  would  never  have 
ity  of  the  been  tolerated  except  at  such  a time  of  par- 
tisan excitement  and  exaggerated  suspicions. 
Even  under  such  conditions  Congress  would  not  pass 
it  as  introduced,  but  incorporated  into  it  many  mod- 
ifying provisions,  most  of  which,  however,  while  reflect- 
ing the  honest  sentiments  of  the  lawmakers,  give  little 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  115 


evidence  of  good  political  science  or  sound  constitu- 
tional law. 

The  two  points  in  the  bill  which  the  conservative 
Republicans  were  unable  to  accept  were,  first,  the  es- 
tablishment of  martial  law  for  an  indefinite  Thg  o os. 
period  and  without  any  provision  for  a way  tion  of  con- 

t */  a servative  R g — 

of  future  escape  from  its  rigors  ; and,  sec-  publicans  to 
ond,  the  usurpation  of  the  President’s  con-  thebl11' 
stitutional  prerogative  of  commandership-in-chief  of 
the  army.  It  soon  became  manifest  that  the  bill  could 
not  pass  without  the  introduction  of  a clause  covering 
the  first  point  and  without  a change  of  the  provision  in 
regard  to  the  second.  A number  of  the  conservative 
Republicans  had  indicated  these  things,  when  Mr.  Blaine 
squarely  asked  Mr.  Stevens  to  incorporate  Mr.  Blaine’s 
an  amendment  in  the  bill  which  should  pro-  ^anges°in  the 
vide  a way  of  escape  from  the  martial  rule  biU- 
which  the  bill  proposed  to  establish.  Mr.  Blaine’s  amend- 
ment held  out  the  promise  of  the  admission  of  each 
of  the  ten  communities  now  to  be  thrown  into  military 
divisions  to  its  proper  position  as  a f<  State  ” of  the 
Union  when  it  should  adopt  the  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment  and  conform  its  constitution  and  laws 
thereto,  should  provide  by  its  constitution  for  universal 
male  suffrage  without  regard  to  race,  color  or  previous 
condition  of  servitude,  and  should  adopt  a constitution 
with  such  a provision  in  it  by  popular  vote,  and  when 
Congress  should  approve  of  the  said  constitution. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  all  this,  while  reflecting  the 
good  moral  feeling  of  Mr.  Blaine,  was  bad  political  science 
and  was  the  very  contradictory  of  sound 
constitutional  law.  As  has  been  pointed  MrniBiaine’9 
out  several  times  already,  it  would  have  Pr0P0SItl0D8- 
been  good  constitutional  law  had  the  United  States 
Congress  simply  delayed  the  admission  or  readmission 


116 


RECONSTRUCTION 


of  these  communities  as  “ States  ” of  the  Union  until 
after  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  any 
other  desirable  amendment,  should  have  been  framed 
and  adopted.  Their  admission  then  would  have  been 
»into  the  same  Union  with  all  the  other  States.  But  to 
demand  of  them,  as  the  condition  of  admission,  their 
acceptance  of  things  not  yet  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  things  not  obligatory  on  the  “ States  ” 
already  in  the  Union,  was  tantamount  to  the  creation 
of  a new  sort  of  union  with  another  kind  of  constitu- 
tion by  an  Act  of  Congress.  This  question  had  been 
thoroughly  talked  out,  fought  out,  and  decided  in 
1820,  and  for  nearly  fifty  years  it  had  been  the  settled 
principle  of  constitutional  law  that  Congress  has  no 
such  power.  It  has  been  also  pointed  out  that  a sound 
political  science  of  the  federal  system  of  government 
teaches  the  same  principle. 

Mr.  Stevens  acted  correctly,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
political  science  and  constitutional  interpretation,  when 
he  declined  to  accept  Mr.  Blaine’s  amendment,  or  to 
allow  a vote  to  be  taken  on  it,  and  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives also  acted  correctly  from  the  same  point 
of  view  when  it  voted  down  a proposition  from  Mr. 
Blaine  to  send  his  amendment  along  with  the  bill  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  with  instruction 
Mr  ste-  report  it  back  with  the  bill.  But  it  is  not 

vena’s  refusal  to  be  inferred  from  the  debates  that  either 
to  accept  . 

Mr.  Blaine’s  Mr.  Stevens  or  the  House  was  actuated  in 

this  course  of  conduct  by  the  above  mentioned 
considerations.  The  expansion  of  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment inevitably  consequent  upon  a long  period  of  war 
seemed  to  have  made  them  all  very  nearly  forget  that 
there  was  anything  but  government  in  our  political  sys- 
tem. The  chief  thought  was  that  one  Congress  could 
not  bind  another  with  any  such  promises  as  those  held 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  117 


out  ill  the  Blaine  amendment,  and  that  each  Congress 
must  at  all  times  be  left  to  its  own  discretion  in  the  de- 
termination of  every  question.  The  House  Pagga  g o£ 
passed  the  bill  as  it  came  from  the  Commit-  bin  the 

r . . House. 

tee  on  Reconstruction  without  change  or 
amendment,  and  on  the  13th  of  February  it  appeared 
in  the  Senate. 

This  more  conservative  and  deliberate  body  regarded 
the  bill  as  too  radical,  and  after  considerable  debate 
upon  a proposed  amendment,  offered  first  The  bill  in 
by  Senator  Williams  of  Oregon,  and  then  theSenate- 
by  Senator  Reverdy  Johnson,  which  was  in  substance 
the  Blaine  proposition,  laid  it  aside  by  general  con- 
sent and  allowed  Senator  Sherman  to  offer  a substitute 
for  it. 

This  substitute  contained  the  gist  of  the  Blaine  amend- 
ment, and  also  changed  the  provision  which  proposed 
to  deprive  the  President  of  his  constitutional 

r . . , ....  ....The  Sher- 

prerogative  of  commandership-m-chief  of  man  subs  ti- 
the army.  While  the  bill  was  thus  made  a 
less  brutal  measure,  and  in  one  respect  a less  uncon- 
stitutional measure,  it  still  rested  upon  a very  shaky 
foundation  so  far  as  constitutional  law  was  concerned, 
and  it  was  opposed  by  all  the  Democratic  Senators.  It 
was  passed,  however,  by  a large  majority,  every  Repub- 
lican who  voted  voting  in  favor  of  it. 

When  it  was  returned  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
for  concurrence,  the  Radical  Republicans  developed  a 
most  hostile  opposition  to  the  changes  which  Thg  gubgt. 
had  been  made  by  the  Senate.  They  claimed  tute  in  the 

" **  House. 

that  the  Senate  bill  proposed  to  bind  future 
Congresses  by  pledges  which  the  existing  Congress  had  no 
right  to  make  and  no  power  to  execute,  and  that  it  also 
proposed  to  use  the  rebel  element  of  the  population  of  the 
South  in  the  work  of  reconstructing  loyal  “ State  ” gov- 


118 


RECONSTRUCTION 


ernments.  After  along  and  acrid  debate,  me  House  re- 
jected the  Senate’s  substitute  by  a union  of  Democratic 
The  senate  votes  with  the  votes  of  the  Radical  Republi- 
jected^by  the  cans-  This  result  and  the  manner  of  its  at- 
Hoiise.  tainment  so  frightened  the  Republicans,  how- 
ever, that  they  quickly  came  to  an  understanding  among 
themselves  in  the  House,  and  with  their  party  colleagues 
The  bin  an  *n  Senate,  and  passed  the  Senate’s  substi- 
finaiiy  agreed  tute,  so  amended  as  to  prevent  disloyal  men, 
as  designated  in  the  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  from  voting  for  delegates  to  a reconstruc- 
tion convention,  or  being  delegates  therein,  or  being 
officers  in  any  so-called  “ State”  government  before  the 
admission  of  the  Senators  and  Representatives  from  that 
“ State”  into  Congress,  and  so  amended  further  as  to 
pronounce  all  professed  civil  governments  existing  in  any 
of  the  late  so-called  Confederate  States,  except  of  course 
Tennessee,  provisional  only,  until  Senators  and  Repre- 
sentatives from  the  same  should  be  admitted  to  seats  in 
Congress,  and  subject,  as  provisional  governments,  to  the 
paramount  authority  of  the  United  States  which  should 
control  them,  and  might  supersede  or  abolish  them  at 
any  time.  The  Senate  also  accepted  these  amendments, 
and  on  the  20th  of  February  the  bill  was  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  President. 

It  contained  the  following  declarations  and  provisions. 
First,  the  preamble  designated  the  ten  communities  re- 
constructed under  the  President’s  direction 
tents  of  the  as  “ the  rebel  States  of  Virginia,  North  Caro- 
biii  as  passed.  gou|;}1  Carolina,  Georgia,”  and  so  on. 

This  was  certainly  an  untruth.  If  they  were  “ States  ” at 
all,  they  certainly  were  not  rebel  “ States.”  They  might 
with  some  appearance  of  correctness  and  sincerity  have 
been  termed  the  late  rebel  “ States,”  but  to  be  called  sim- 
ply rebel  “States”  was,  to  say  the  very  least,  one  of  the 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  119 

grossest  exaggerations  to  be  found  in  the  wording  of  the 
statutes  of  Congress.  It  was  simply  a play  on  words 
whereby  to  justify  a dubious  procedure.  It  was  at  the 
very  best,  a confounding  of  the  supposed  sentiments  of 
the  population  of  these  regions  with  actual  political 
status.  Second,  the  preamble  declared  that  no  legal 
“State”  governments  or  adequate  protection  for  life  or 
property  existed  in  these  “ rebel  States.”  As  a legal 
proposition  the  first  part  of  this  declaration  was  true, 
and  as  a matter  of  fact  the  second  part  was  substan- 
tially true.  It  would  have  been  an  unprecedented  thing 
if  anything  like  an  adequate  protection  of  life  and  prop- 
erty had  been  re-established,  in  the  short  period  of  two 
years,  in  communities  which  had  been  disturbed,  de- 
moralized and  destroyed  by  four  years  of  civil  war, 
especially  when  the  outcome  of  the  conflict  was  total 
defeat  and  the  utter  destruction  of  the  basis  of  the  old 
social,  political,  and  economic  systems.  It  was,  how- 
ever, a serious  question  whether  such  a situation  re- 
quired drastic  measures  rather  than  mild  and  soothing 
measures. 

The  Republican  Congress  decided,  after  much  deliber- 
ation, that  the  former  were  necessary  to  the  maintenance 
of  peace  and  good  order,  and,  therefore,  enacted  that  the 
“ said  rebel  States  ” should  be  divided  into  five  military 
districts,  as  previously  described  in  the  original  bill  ; that 
the  President  should  assign  to  the  command  of  each  of 
these  an  army  officer  of  not  lower  rank  than  brigadier- 
general,  and  place  under  his  command  a sufficient  force  to 
enable  him  to  perform  his  duties  and  execute  his  author- 
ity in  his  district ; that  these  commanders  should  have 
the  power  to  govern  these  districts  by  martial  law  in  so  far 
as,  in  their  judgment,  the  reign  of  order  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  public  peace  might  demand,  under  the  limita- 
tions simply  that  “all  persons  put  under  military  arrest 


120 


RECONSTRUCTION 


by  virtue  of  this  act  shall  be  tried  without  unnecessary 
delay,  and  no  cruel  or  unusual  punishment  shall  be 
inflicted,  and  no  sentence  of  any  military  commission  or 
tribunal  hereby  authorized  affecting  the  life  or  liberty 
of  any  person,  shall  be  executed  until  it  is  approved  by 
the  officer  in  command  of  the  district — and  no  sentence 
of  death  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  carried 
into  effect  without  the  approval  of  the  President.” 

Then  came  the  provision  which  offered  the  terms  of 
escape  from  this  new  military  regime.  They  were,  first, 
the  exercise  of  universal  manhood  suffrage,  that  is  the 
suffrage  of  all  male  citizens,  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
without  regard  to  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude,  who  were  not  disfranchised  for  participation 
in  rebellion  or  for  felony  at  common  law,  and  who  had 
resided  for  one  year  in  the  so-called  “ rebel  State,” 
in  the  election  of  delegates  to  a constitutional  con- 
vention in  the  so-called  “ rebel  State  ” ; second,  the 
framing  of  a “ State  ” constitution  by  a convention  com- 
posed of  delegates  so  elected,  and  not  disqualified  by 
participation  in  rebellion  or  by  the  commission  of  fel- 
ony, which  constitution  should  conform  in  all  respects 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  which 
should  contain,  as  a permanent  principle,  the  same  law 
of  suffrage  as  that  prescribed  by  this  Act  for  the  elec- 
tion of  the  delegates  to  the  convention  ; third,  the  rati- 
fication of  this  constitution  by  a majority  of  the  voters, 
as  designated  by  the  law  of  suffrage  for  the  choice 
of  delegates  to  the  convention,  voting  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  ratification  ; fourth,  the  approval  by  Congress 
of  this  constitution  ; and  fifth,  and  last,  the  adop- 
tion of  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  by  the  legislature 
created  by  such  adopted  and  approved  “ State  ” con- 
stitution, and  by  a sufficient  number  of  the  legislatures 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  121 

of  other  “ States  ” to  make  it  a part  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

The  measure  contained,  in  the  last  place,  a sort  of 
saving  clause  in  regard  to  the  existing  civil  governments 
which  had  been  established  in  all  these  communities 
under  the  direction  of  the  President,  and  which  were 
now  to  be  displaced.  It  had  been  already  provided, 
in  section  third,  that  the  military  commander  of  a dis- 
trict might  use  the  existing  civil  courts,  if  he  saw  fit  to 
do  so,  so  long  as  the  reign  of  law  and  order  might  be  so 
preserved,  and  the  final  section  provided  that  any  civil 
government  which  might  exist  in  these  districts  should 
be  regarded  as  provisional,  and  should  be  in  all  respects 
subject  to  the  paramount  authority  of  the  United  States, 
which  should  control,  and  might  abolish,  modify,  or 
supersede  the  same,  and  that  the  voters  for  the  election 
of  the  officers  of  such  provisional  governments  should 
be  required  to  have  only  the  qualifications  prescribed  in 
this  Act  for  voters  for  the  delegates  to  the  said  “ State  ” 
convention,  and  persons  elected  to  place  and  office  in 
such  provisional  governments  must  not  have  the  dis- 
qualifications prescribed  in  the  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
It  had  evidently  occurred  to  the  Republican  leaders  that 
they  might  have  to  make  use  of  some  of  the  machinery 
of  the  existing  civil  governments  established  under  the 
direction  of  the  President  in  these  regions  in  executing 
their  own  plan  of  Reconstruction. 

All  of  the  points  of  the  measure  have  been  comment- 
ed on,  except  the  provision  in  the  fifth  section,  which 
makes  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  by  a 
number  of  “ States  " sufficient  to  ratify  it  a condition 
precedent  to  the  admission  of  any  one  of  these  so-called 
“ rebel  States  ” to  representation  in  Congress.  The 


122 


RECONSTRUCTION 


adoption  of  the  proposed  amendment  by  the  particular 
“rebel  State”  seeking  representation  was  not  sufficient. 

The  condi-  It  must  be  ratified  by  at  least  three-fourths 
pTopoVe'd  of  all  the  “States.”  No  matter  how  speed- 
AmwdmeiS  ily  and  sincerely  the  legislature  of  Virginia 
Buff’fcfe'nt  might  ratify  the  proposed  Amendment,  and 
“State's”1  to  fulfil  aH  the  other  conditions  required  by  the 
S^he'consU-  Act,  Virginia  must  remain  under  military 
tution.  despotism  until  a very  large  number  of  the 

Northern  “ State  ” legislatures  had  pleased  to  ratify 
the  proposed  Amendment.  This  was  certainly  a pretty 
hard  condition,  and  it  was  not  a very  fair  way  of  forcing 
the  legislatures  of  the  Northern  States  to  adopt  the 
proposed  Amendment.  It  was,  however,  an  efficient 
weapon,  and  Congress  had  the  legal  power  to  use  it.  It 
was  unconscionable,  though  it  was  one  of  the  things 
about  this  measure  which  was  constitutional. 

Hand  in  hand  with  this  bill  went  another  measure, 
the  purpose  of  which  was  to  limit  the  customary  pow- 

The Tenure-  er  °f  the  President,  if  not  his  constitutional 
of- office  bill.  p0werj  over  the  civil  official  system,  the  so- 
called  Tenure-of-Office  bill.  On  the  first  day  of  the 
session,  December  3d,  1866,  Mr.  Williams  of  Oregon  in- 
troduced this  bill  in  the  Senate,  while  at  the  same  mo- 
ment a bill  was  introduced  and  passed  in  the  House  re- 
pealing that  section  of  the  Confiscation  Act  of  July 
17th,  1862,  which  authorized  the  President  to  extend 
pardon  and  amnesty  by  proclamation  to  persons  partici- 
pating in  the  rebellion.  The  Senate  passed  the  latter  bill 
or  resolution  on  the  8th  of  January,  1867,  and  the  Presi- 
dent, not  considering  that  the  Congress  could  either  give 
or  take  away  his  power  to  pardon  secured  to  him  by  the 
Constitution,  simply  pocketed  the  resolution,  and  it  be- 
came a law  on  and  from  the  21st  of  January,  having 
been  presented  to  the  President  on  the  9th. 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  123 

The  propositions  contained  in  the  Tennre-of-Office  bill 
were,  however,  of  a very  different  significance.  There 
was  no  clause  in  the  Constitution  which  by  express  literal 
grant  vested  the  power  to  dismiss  from  office  in  the  Presi- 
dent, but  the  clause  which  made  the  President  solely  re- 
sponsible for  the  execution  of  the  laws  was  interpreted 
by  the  first  Congress  as  doing  so.  Madison  took  the 
ground  that  the  President  must  have  this  power  in  order 
to  secure  the  necessary  obedience  in  his  subordinates, 
and  declared  that  the  convention  which  framed  the 
Constitution  so  understood  it  and  so  intended  it.  This 
is  certainly  sound  political  science  and  correct  constitu- 
tional interpretation.  It  had  also  been  the  practice  of 
the  Government  from  the  beginning.  The  Whigs  had 
undertaken  to  reverse  it  in  their  contest  with  Jackson, 
and  Webster  had  given  his  opinion  that  good  political 
science  required  that  dismissal  from  office  should  be 
treated  as  an  incident  of  appointment,  and  should  be 
effected  in  the  same  manner  as  appointment,  i.e.,  with 
the  concurrence  of  the  Senate,  and  that  the  decision  of 
1789  on  this  subject  was,  in  his  opinion,  erroneous 
from  the  point  of  view  of  a proper  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution  as  well.  But  the  Whigs  did  not  succeed, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  their  attempt  to  break  down  Presi- 
dential prerogative  and  introduce  parliamentary  govern- 
ment, and  the  practice  of  the  Government  on  this  sub- 
ject remained,  after,  as  before,  the  fourth  decade  of  the 
century,  the  same. 

During  the  experiences  of  the  years  1865  and  1866 
the  Republicans  feared  that  the  President  would  use 
this  great  power  of  dismissal  from  office  The  reasons 
in  order  to  make  the  entire  official  system  u°er- of  eoffice 
solid  with  himself  on  the  subject  of  Recon-  bm- 
struction,  and  toward  the  end  of  1866  they  sus- 
pected and  asserted  that  he  was  dismissing  officers 


124 


RECONSTRUCTION 


from  their  positions  simply  on  the  ground  of  a dif- 
ference of  opinion  with  himself  on  this  subject,  and 
they  professed  to  believe  that  he  would  make  a clean 
sweep  of  all  such  as  soon  as  Congress  should  adjourn. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  excessive  partisan  feeling 
made  them  exaggerate  greatly  what  the  President  had 
done  and  what  he  intended  to  do.  The  President  was 
guided  by  Mr.  Seward  in  all  public  matters  except  his 
imprudent  speeches,  and  Seward’s  conservative  and  dip- 
lomatic disposition  and  methods  were  all  against  any 
such  radical  and  reckless  procedure.  Besides,  it  was  the 
constitutional  right  of  the  President  to  require  obedi- 
ence in  their  official  acts  from  his  subordinates,  and  to 
dismiss  them  when  in  his  opinion  their  views  of  policy 
interfered  with  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties  as 
he  required  them  to  be  discharged.  The  Thirty-ninth 
Congress,  however,  resolved  to  disregard  the  precedents 
set  by  all  of  its  predecessors  and  to  dispute  the  Presi- 
dent’s prerogative  of  control  over  the  tenure  of  his 
subordinates. 

The  bill  drafted  for  this  purpose  made  the  removal 
of  all  officers,  appointed  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the 
Senate,  except  only  members  of  the  President’s  Cabinet, 
subject  to  the  consent  of  the  Senate.  This  consent 
The  con-  be  given  in  the  form  of  a ratification  of 

tents  of  the  the  nomination  of  a successor  to  any  officer. 

It  allowed  the  President,  during  a recess 
of  the  Senate,  the  power  of  suspension  for  misconduct 
in  office,  crime,  legal  disqualification  or  incapacity,  and 
of  making  appointment  of  a suitable  person  to  discharge 
temporarily  the  duties  of  such  suspended  officer,  but  it 
required  of  the  President  a report  of  all  such  suspen- 
sions to  the  Senate  within  the  first  twenty  days  of  the 
next  meeting  of  the  Senate,  with  the  reasons  therefor, 
.and  reinstated  the  suspended  officer  in  case  the  Senate 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  125 

should  not  concur  in  the  suspension.  If  the  Senate 
should  concur,  the  President  must  remove  the  officer, 
and  appoint,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
another  person  in  his  place. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  present  this  would 
seem,  in  all  conscience,  to  have  been  a sufficient  usur- 
pation of  the  President’s  constitutional  pow-  Discussion 
ers  to  have  satisfied  the  most  radical  and  oftheblU- 
reckless  interpretation  of  the  organic  law.  But  the 
bill  had  hardly  come  under  discussion  when  Senator 
Howe  moved  to  strike  out  the  clause  excepting  the 
Cabinet  officers  from  its  operation,  and  although  the 
Senate  refused  to  pass  this  amendment,  the  House  of 
Representatives  did  so  when  the  bill  came  before  it. 
The  Senate,  however,  refused  to  concur  on  the  ground, 
of  course,  that  the  intimate  and  confidential  relations 
which  should  exist  between  the  President  and  the  mem- 
bers of  his  Cabinet  made  it  necessary  that  the  President 
should  have  only  the  men  of  his  own  choice  in  these 
positions.  The  strenuous  insistence  of  the  House,  how- 
ever, forced  the  Senate  to  a compromise  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  the  bill  was  finally  made  to  provide  that  the 
members  of  the  Cabinet  should  “ hold  their  offices,  re- 
spectively, for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President  by 
whom  they  have  been  appointed,  and  for  one  month 
thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by  and  with  the  consent 
of  the  Senate.”  That  is,  that  a Cabinet  officer  might 
hold  his  position  against  the  will  of  the  President  who 
appointed  him  during  the  entire  term  of  the  President 
and  for  one  month  of  the  term  of  his  successor  unless 
the  Senate  should  agree  to  such  officer’s  removal  either 
directly  or  by  ratification  of  the  nomination  of  a suc- 
cessor. 

The  bill  as  finally  enacted  contained,  moreover,  the 
most  stringent  provisions  for  its  enforcement.  It  made 


126 


RECONSTRUCTION 


the  acceptance  or  exercise  of  any  office  or  the  attempt  to 
exercise  any  office  contrary  to  the  Act  a high  misde- 
The  provi-  meanor,  punishable  by  a maximum  fine  of  ten 
!o r c rn  g the  thousand  dollars  or  a maximum  imprison  - 
measure.  ment  of  five  years,  or  both  in  the  discretion  of 
the  court ; and  it  made  the  removal,  appointment,  or  em- 
ployment of  any  officer  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the 
Act,  or  the  preparation,  signing,  sealing,  countersign- 
ing or  issuing  of  any  commission  of  office  or  letter  of 
authority  in  respect  to  any  such  appointment  or  em- 
ployment high  misdemeanors,  punishable  with  the  same 
extreme  penalties.  Lastly,  it  forbade  the  officers  of  the 
Treasury  and  all  officers  of  the  United  States  to  pay 
any  money,  salary  or  compensation  to  any  person  claim- 
ing to  hold  any  office  or  employment  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  this  Act,  and  made  the  violation  of  this 
order  a high  misdemeanor,  punishable  with  the  same 
extreme  penalties  as  in  the  other  cases. 

This  monstrous  measure  went  to  the  President  on 
the  same  day  with  the  Reconstruction  bill,  the  20th 
of  February.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  he  felt 
that  the  Republican  chiefs  were  offering  him  intentional 
personal  insult,  as  well  as  that  the  legislative  depart- 
ment of  the  Government  was  attempting  an  unwar- 
ranted encroachment  upon  the  constitutional 

T hi  0 Presi-  ^ 

dent’s  vetoes  prerogatives  of  the  Executive.  It  is  rather  to 
of  these  bills#  , -»  -»  ■ . ■»  # • 

be  wondered  at  that,  m his  message  to  Con- 
gress  on  these  subjects,  he  succeeded  so  well  in  ignoring 
the  personal  affronts  intended  by  Congress,  and  in  con- 
fining himself  so  closely  to  a discussion  of  the  public 
questions  and  considerations  involved  in  the  measures. 

The  vetoes  of  these  bills  were  sent  to  Congress  on  the 
same  day,  March  2d.  To  the  publicist  and  historian 
of  this  day  they  are  masterpieces  of  political  logic,  con- 
stitutional interpretation,  and  official  style.  If  not 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  127 

written  by  Mr.  Seward,  they  must  have  been  edited  and 
revised  by  him.  These  documents  showed  most  con- 
vincingly, both  from  constitutional  provisions,  opin- 
ions of  contemporaries,  statutes  of  Congress,  judicial 
decisions,  and  the  uniform  practices  of  the  Govern- 
ment, that  Congress  had  no  power  to  establish  or  re- 
establish martial  law  anywhere  in  the  country,  except 
when  and  where  war  or  armed  rebellion  existed  as  a 
fact,  a condition  which  did  not  then  exist  anywhere  in 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land ; and  that  Congress 
had  no  power  to  force  the  President  to  retain  agents 
and  subordinates  in  office  against  his  judgment  and  will. 
No  good  political  scientist  and  no  sound  constitutional 
lawyer  will,  at  this  day,  disagree  with  the  contention 
of  the  President  upon  these  two  points,  and  it  is  very 
difficult  to  understand  how  the  great  leaders  of  the  Re- 
publican party  could,  at  that  day,  have  ffiffered  with 
him. 

Undoubtedly,  in  some  of  the  baser  minds  among  them, 
the  determination  to  create  Republican  party  “ States  ” 
in  the  South  was  a very  weighty  consideration,  but  just 
as  undoubtedly  the  consideration  with  the  majority  of 
them  was  the  conviction  that  the  work  of  the  four 
years  of  war  might  have  to  be  done  all  over  again  unless 
a new  political  people,  a new  body  of  suffrage  holders, 
should  be  created  at  the  South,  whose  members  had 
never  been  disloyal.  But  even  from  this  point  of 
view  again,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  they  could 
have  failed  to  see  that  the  Constitution  required  that 
this  should  be  done  through  the  forms  of  Republican 
Territorial  civil  government,  instead  of  “econsYru™ 
through  the  forms  of  martial  law.  Put  the  tion- 
best  light  upon  their  conduct  that  is  possible,  there 
is  still  left  the  conviction  that  the  fanaticism  of  extreme 
partisanship  had  an  undue  influence  over  them  all. 


128 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  contest  with  the  President  had  blinded  their  per- 
ceptions as  to  the  morality,  legality  and  propriety  of  the 
means  they  were  willing  to  employ  in  securing  the  vic- 
tory over  him. 

As  this  contest  developed  it  dwarfed,  to  say  the 
least,  all  other  considerations.  Even  as  late  as  when 
the  Reconstruction  bill  was  passed,  the  majority  of  the 
Republicans  refused  to  vote  to  take  the  President’s 
military  prerogatives  from  him.  In  less  than  a fort- 
night from  this  time,  however,  they  voted,  in  a sec- 
congres-  tion  of  the  Army  Appropriation  bill,  “that 
croachmen t the  head-quarters  of  the  General  of  the  army 
dent’emUitary  the  United  States  shall  be  at  the  city  of 
prerogatives.  Washington,  and  all  orders  and  instructions 
relating  to  military  operations  issued  by  the  President 
or  Secretary  of  War  shall  be  issued  through  the  General 
of  the  army,  and,  in  case  of  his  inability,  through  the 
next  in  rank.  The  General  of  the  army  shall  not  be 
removed,  suspended,  or  relieved  from  command,  or  as- 
signed to  duty  elsewhere  than  at  said  head-quarters,  ex- 
cept at  his  own  request,  without  the  previous  approval  of 
the  Senate  ; and  any  orders  or  instructions  relating  to 
military  operations  issued  contrary  to  the  requirements 
of  this  section  shall  be  null  and  void  ; and  any  officer 
who  shall  issue  orders  or  instructions  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor  in  office  ; and  any  officer  of  the  army  who 
shall  transmit,  convey,  or  obey  any  orders  or  instruc- 
tions so  issued  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 
tion, knowing  that  such  orders  were  so  issued,  shall 
be  liable  to  imprisonment  for  not  less  than  two  nor  more 
than  twenty  years,  upon  conviction  in  any  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction.” 

To  the  mind  of  any  unprejudiced  constitutional  law- 
yer, at  the  present  day,  this  act  must  appear  as  a gross 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  129 


usurpation  by  Congress  of  the  President’s  military 
powers  conferred  upon  him  by  the  Constitution.  The 
Constitution  makes  the  President  the  Commander-in- 
Chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  and  gives  Congress  no 
power  whatsoever  over  the  methods  or  channels  by,  and 
through,  which  he  may  issue  his  military  commands. 
Neither  does  the  Constitution  give  Congress  any  power 
to  assign  any  of  the  officers  or  troops  of  the  army  to  any 
particular  position.  These  are  all  functions  of  the  com- 
mandership-iu-chief,  and,  unless  expressly  granted  by 
the  Constitution  to  some  other  department  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, belong  to  the  President. 

It  was  not  only  a usurpation  by  Congress  to  pass  such 
an  act,  but  it  was  a mean  thing  to  do  it  as  a section  of 
an  appropriation  bill ; and  there  is  no  escaping  the  sus- 
picion that  it  had  a sinister  purpose,  namely,  to  entrap 
the  President  in  the  commission  of  what  Congress  had 
made  a high  misdemeanor,  and  open  the  way  for  his 
impeachment  and  expulsion  from  office.  The  Presi- 
dent signed  this  bill,  however,  in  order  to  save  the  ap- 
propriations for  the  support  of  the  army,  although  he 
protested  strongly  against  the  seizure  of  his  constitu- 
tional powers  by  the  Congress. 

On  the  same  day  that  the  vetoes  of  the  Reconstruc- 
tion bill  and  the  Tenure-of-Office  bill  were  sent  to  Con- 
gress, this  body  passed  a bill  supplementary  The  Bupple. 
to  the  first  measure.  It  was  in  the  nature  ^^tracuon 
of  an  administrative  measure  for  the  purpose  M1- 
of  carrying  out  the  new  plan  of  Reconstruction.  It  or- 
dered the  commanding  generals  of  the  respective  dis- 
tricts to  cause  a registration  to  be  made  before  Septem- 
ber 1st  next  following  of  all  male  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  over,  resident  in 
each  county  or  parish  in  the  “ State  ” or  “ States  ” in- 
cluded in  their  respective  districts,  who  were  qualified  as 


130 


RECONSTRUCTION 


prescribed  by  the  Reconstruction  Act  to  vote  for  dele- 
gates to  a constitutional  convention,  and  who  had  taken 
an  oath  asserting  citizenship  and  residence,  and  free- 
dom from  disfranchisement  on  account  of  participa- 
tion in  rebellion  or  the  commission  of  felony,  and  had 
sworn  that  they  had  never  engaged  in  insurrection  or 
rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  given  aid  and 
comfort  to  the  enemies  of  the  United  States  after  hav- 
ing been  members  of  Congress  or  of  a “ State  ” legis- 
lature, or  officers  of  the  United  States  or  of  a “ State  ” 
of  the  Union,  and  that  they  would  henceforth  faith- 
fully support  the  Constitution  and  obey  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  and  encourage  others  to  do  so. 

It  next  made  it  the  duty  of  the  commanding  gener- 
als to  order  elections,  at  such  times  after  the  completion 
of  the  registrations  and  at  such  places  as  they  might 
choose,  for  delegates  to  constitutional  conventions  in  the 
“States”  comprised  in  their  respective  districts.  It 
required  them  to  give  thirty  days’  notice  of  the  elec- 
tions, and  it  fixed  the  number  of  delegates  to  each  con- 
vention at  the  number  of  members  in  the  lower  House 
of  the  legislature  of  the  “State”  concerned  in  the 
year  1860,  except  in  the  case  of  Virginia,  where,  on  ac- 
count of  the  separation  of  West  Virginia  from  the  old 
Commonwealth,  the  number  of  deputies  to  the  Virginia 
convention  was  made  to  correspond  with  the  number 
of  members  in  the  lower  House  of  the  legislature  of 
1860,  representing  the  territory  not  included  in  West 
Virginia.  The  bill  further  directed  the  commanding 
generals  to  distribute  the  representation  in  the  con- 
ventions among  the  districts,  counties  and  parishes  of 
the  “States”  in  accordance  with  the  number  of  regis- 
tered voters  in  each. 

The  bill  then  provided  that  at  the  elections  for  del- 
egates, the  voters  should  vote  on  the  question  as  to 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  131 


whether  there  should  be  a constitutional  convention 
or  not,  and  that  such  convention  should  be  held  only 
when  a majority  of  the  inscribed  electors  voted  upon 
this  question,  and  a majority  of  those  voting  voted  in 
the  affirmative.  It  then  ordered  the  commanding  gen- 
erals, in  case  the  voters  did  so  decide  for  conventions 
and  elect  delegates  thereto,  to  call  such  within  sixty 
days  from  the  date  of  the  elections,  and  to  notify  the 
delegates  to  assemble  at  a given  time  and  place,  and 
frame  constitutions  according  to  the  provisions  of  the 
bill  and  of  the  former  Act  to  which  it  was  supplemen- 
tary, and,  when  framed,  to  submit  the  same  to  the 
registered  voters  for  ratification  with  a notice  of  thirty 
days. 

The  bill  then  further  provided,  that  if,  at  such  elec- 
tions, a majority  of  the  registered  voters  voted  upon 
the  question  of  ratification,  and  a majority  of  those 
voting  voted  in  favor  of  ratification,  the  presidents 
of  the  respective  conventions  should  transmit  copies  of 
the  respective  constitutions  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  who  should  transmit  them  to  Congress, 
and  that  Congress  should  declare  the  respective  “ States,” 
whose  conventions  had  framed  these  constitutions  and 
whose  voters  had  adopted  them,  entitled  to  represen- 
tation in  Congress,  provided  Congress  was  satisfied  that 
there  had  been  perfectly  free  elections,  and  that  no 
force,  fraud  or  intimidation  had  been  perpetrated  at 
them,  and  that  the  constitutions  presented  met  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  qualified  electors  and  were 
in  conformity  with  the  requirements  of  the  Reconstruc- 
tion Act. 

Finally,  the  bill  put  into  the  hands  of  the  command- 
ing generals  the  appointment  of  the  officers  of  the 
elections,  and  the  control  of  the  machinery  of  the  elec- 
tions, only  requiring  them  to  hold  the  elections  by  bal- 


132 


RECONSTRUCTION 


lot,  and  to  proclaim  the  results  of  the  elections  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  returns  made  to  them  by  their  boards 
of  registration. 

Congress  had  passed  a resolution  ordering  the  assem- 
bly of  the  Fortieth  Congress  so  soon  as  the  Thirty-ninth 
congress  in  expired,  and  in  accordance  therewith  the 
permanence.  new]y  elected  Congress  opened  its  session  on 
the  4th  of  March,  1867,  instead  of  on  the  first  Monday 
of  the  following  December.  The  Congress  was,  there- 
fore, in  position  to  deal  at  once  with  a veto  of  the  sup- 
plemental bill  to  the  Reconstruction  Act,  in  case  one 
should  be  sent  in. 

On  the  23d  of  March  the  veto  appeared.  The  Presi- 
dent argued  that  the  oath  required  by  the  bill  from 
The  veto  of  every  person  before  his  name  could  be  ad- 
mentaifiecon-  mitted  to  registration,  viz.,  “that  he  had 
s traction  bill.  not  been  disfranchised  for  participation  in 
any  rebellion  or  civil  war  against  the  United  States/’ 
was  so  entirely  uncertain  in  its  meaning  that  it  would 
prove  a most  terrible  means  of  oppression  in  the  hands 
of  the  military  officers  and  their  appointed  agents,  and 
declared  he  could  never  approve  of  an  election  law 
whose  plain  and  manifest  purpose  was  to  disfranchise 
the  great  body  of  respectable  white  people,  and  create  a 
new  electorate  on  the  basis  of  universal  negro  suffrage. 
He  contended  that  the  existing  constitutions  of  the  ten 
“ States  ” to  be  re-reconstructed  conformed  to  the  long- 
established  standards  of  loyalty  and  Republicanism, 
and  that  the  new  test  of  these  qualities  now  set  up  by 
Congress,  viz.,  universal  negro  suffrage,  was  a gross  ex- 
aggeration, and  would  make  many  of  the  Northern' 
“ States  ” themselves  unrepublican.  The  President  did 
not  expressly  say  that  this  bill  was  unconstitutional, 
but  he  quite  distinctly  implied  it.  In  this,  however,  he 
was  wrong,  unless  his  doctrine  that  the  rebellious  com- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  133 


munities  remained  “States”  of  the  Union  throughout 
the  rebellion,  or  had  been  reconstructed  by  his  plan,  was 
true,  that  is,  unless  these  communities  were  “ States  ” 
of  the  Union  at  the  time  Congress  passed  this  bill. 

On  the  other  hand,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  cor- 
rect legal  principle  in  regard  to  this  subject,  the  principle 
which  holds  that  the  result  of  general  rebellion  within  a 
“ State  ” against  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  criticism  of 
the  United  States  is  the  loss  of  the  “ State  ” thevet0- 
form  of  local  government,  and  brings  the  territory  and 
population  of  the  former  “ State  ” under  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  central  Government,  Congress  cer- 
tainly had,  and  has,  the  power  to  create  the  electorate  in 
such  territory  at  its  own  discretion,  Congress  was  re- 
ferred, and  is  referred,  in  such  a case,  only  to  its  own 
sense  of  right  and  policy. 

But  there  is  no  question,  now,  that  Congress  did  a 
monstrous  thing,  and  committed  a great  political  error, 
if  not  a sin,  in  the  creation  of  this  new  _ .. . . . 

electorate.  It  was  a great  wrong  to  civiliza-  the  Recon- 

o o Qrmrnnn  A prs 

tion  to  put  the  white  race  of  the  South 
under  the  domination  of  the  negro  race.  The  claim 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  color  of  the  skin  from  the 
point  of  view  of  political  ethics  is  a great  sophism. 

A black  skin  means  membership  in  a race  of  men  ^p-CV 
which  has  never  of  itself  succeeded  in  subjecting  pas-tiH-^ 
sion  to  reason,  has  never,  therefore,  created  any  civ-  " 
ilization  of  any  kind.  To  put  such  a race  of  men  in  : 
possession  of  a “State”  government  in  a system  of 
federal  government  is  to  trust  them  with  the  develop- 
ment of  political  and  legal  civilization  upon  the  most 
important  subjects  of  human  life,  and  to  do  this  in 
communities  with  a large  white  population  is  simply  to 
establish  barbarism  in  power  over  civilization.  The 
supposed  disloyalty,  or  even  the  actual  disloyalty,  of 


134 


RECONSTRUCTION 


the  white  population  will  not  justify  this.  It  will  jus- 
tify the  indefinite  withholding  of  the  “ State  ” form 
of  local  government.  It  will  justify  the  throwing  of  a 
“ State”  of  the  Union  back  under  the  form  of  a Terri- 
tory of  the  Union.  It  will  even  justify  the  establishment 
of  martial  law.  But  it  is  not  to  be  cured,  nor  is  the 
welfare  of  the  whole  land,  or  any  part  of  it,  to  be  pro- 
moted, by  the  subjection  of  the  white  race  to  the  black 
race  in  politics  and  government.  It  was  a great  wrong 
to  the  negroes  themselves.  It  made  the  white  men 
among  whom  they  must  live  their  most  bitter  enemies, 
when  they  most  needed  them  for  friends,  and  it  made 
the  negroes  trifling  and  corrupt  politicians,  when  they 
should  have  been  devoting  themselves  exclusively  to  the 
acquirement  of  property  and  education.  It  was  argued, 
as  will  be  well  remembered,  that  they  could  not  acquire 
property  and  education  without  the  ballot.  But  this 
is  another  sophism.  The  mainstay  of  property  is  the 
courts  ; and  under  a Territorial  form  of  local  gov- 
ernment Congress  could  have  established  a system  of 
free  schools.  It  was  not  at  all  necessary  to  have  re- 
course to  negro  suffrage  and  negro  “ State  ” govern- 
ments in  order  to  secure  the  negroes  in  their  personal 
liberty,  and  the  possession  of  property,  and  to  aid  them 
in  the  acquirement  of  education. 

There  was  another  alternative,  and  a better  one.  In 
fact,  there  were  two  other  conceivable  ways  of  doing  these 
things,  either  of  which  would  have  been  better  than  the 
one  chosen.  The  one  was,  as  has  been  already  suggested, 
to  establish  Territorial  civil  governments  in  the  late  re- 
bellious region  and  maintain  them  there  until  the  civil 
relations  between  the  two  races  became  settled  and  fixed. 
The  other  was  to  so  amend  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  before  the  readmission  of  the  “States” 
which  had  renounced  the  “ State  ” form  of  local  govern- 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  135 

ment  under  the  Union,  as  to  give  Congress  and  the 
national  judiciary  the  power  to  define  and  defend  the 
fundamental  principles  of  civil  liberty.  Neither  of 
these  methods  would  have  demanded  martial  law  or 
universal  negro  suffrage.  It  is  entirely  surprising,  from 
the  point  of  view  of  to-day,  that  one  or  the  other  of 
these  methods  or  a combination  of  both  was  not  resorted 
to,  instead  of  the  monstrous  plan  that  was  carried  out. 
There  is  no  way  to  explain  this  sufficiently,  except 
upon  the  reflection  that  the  passions  of  the  men  of 
that  day  had  become  so  inflamed  and  so  completely 
dominating  that  they  obscured  reason,  drowned  the 
voice  of  prudence,  and  even  dulled  the  sense  of  decency. 
There  were  a few  who  favored  universal  negro  suffrage 
from  an  exalted  and  exaggerated  humanitarianism,  but 
the  mass  of  the  Republicans  sustained  it  as  a punish- 
ment to  the  late  rebellious  whites,  and  as  a means 
of  establishing  Republican  party  “State”  govern- 
ments in  the  South.  Many  claimed,  indeed,  that  it 
was  the  only  alternative  to  long-continued  martial  law 
rule,  but  they  were  either  very  ignorant  or  very  in- 
sincere. 

In  prompt  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  the  two 
Reconstruction  Acts,  the  President  issued  his  general 
order  through  the  Adjutant-GeneraTs  office,  on  March 
11th,  assigning  General  Schofield  to  the  command  of  the 
first  military  district,  as  created  by  these  Acts,  with  his 
head-quarters  at  Richmond,  Virginia;  General  Sickles  to 
that  of  the  second,  with  his  head-quarters  at  The  aesigH- 
Columbia,  South  Carolina ; General  Thomas  “landing 
to  that  of  the  third,  with  his  head-quarters  m^ftary  dda- 
at  Montgomery,  Alabama  ; General  Ord  to  byCaeCBecoi? 
that  of  the  fourth,  with  his  head-quarters  structionActs. 
at  Vicksburg,  Mississippi ; and  General  Sheridan  to 
that  of  the  fifth,  with  his  head-quarters  at  New  Or- 


136 


RECONSTRUCTION 


leans,  Louisiana.  On  the  15th  this  order  was  so  modi- 
fied as  to  change  the  assignment  of  General  Thomas 
from  the  command  of  the  third  district  to  that  of  the 
Department  of  the  Cumberland,  and  to  substitute 
General  Pope  for  him  in  the  command  of  the  third 
district. 

These  officers  betook  themselves  at  once,  with  the 
forces  attached  to  their  several  commands,  to  their  re- 
The  re-estab-  spective  stations,  and  assumed  the  govern- 
martiaUawin  ment  of  their  respective  districts  by  martial 
the  south.  law.  opposition  whatever  was  made  to 
any  of  them  by  the  populations  thus  made  subject  to 
their  despotic  rule. 

Very  soon,  however,  the  generals  found  great  diffi- 
culty in  interpreting  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  espe- 
The  Presi-  c^y  in  respect  to  the  oath  required  for  en- 
dent's  in-  franchisement,  both  as  to  the  persons  who 

structions  to  . , r 

the  generals  in  might  take  it  and  as  to  its  consequences,  and 

interpretation  . . . . , * . , , , 

of  the  Recon-  in  respect  to  the  powers  of  the  boards  ap- 
struction  Acta.  p0jn^ecj  £0  superintend  the  elections.  They 

applied  to  the  President  for  information  upon  these 
points.  The  President  submitted  their  application  to 
his  Attorney-General  and  to  his  Cabinet,  and  with  the 
full  concurrence  of  all  the  members  thereof,  except 
only  Mr.  Stanton,  issued  through  the  Adjutant-Gener- 
aPs  office  in  the  War  Department,  on  the  20th  of  June, 
the  following  instructions  : 

First : That  the  oath  prescribed  in  the  second  Act  de- 
fined all  the  qualifications  required  for  suffrage,  and  that 
any  person  who  could  take  that  oath  should  have  his 
name  entered  on  the  list  of  voters  ; that  the  boards  of 
registration  provided  in  that  Act  could  not  require  any 
other,  or  any  additional,  oath  from  the  person  applying 
for  registration,  nor  “ administer  an  oath  to  any  other 
person  touching  the  qualification  of  the  applicant  or 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  137 

the  falsity  of  the  oath  taken  by  him,”  but  that  the  per- 
son taking  the  oath  must  be  registered  as  a voter,  and 
if  it  could  be  afterward  proved  that  he  had  sworn  false- 
ly, he  could  be  punished  for  perjury. 

Second  : That  an  unnaturalized  alien  could  not  take 
the  oath,  but  a naturalized  alien  could,  and  that  no 
other  proof  of  naturalization  could  be  required  of  him. 

Third  : That  “ actual  participation  in  rebellion  or 
the  actual  commission  of  a felony  ” did  not  amount  to 
disfranchisement,  but  there  must  be  a law  made  by 
competent  authority  declaring  disfranchisement,  or  a 
judicial  sentence  inflicting  it,  and  that  no  law  of  the 
United  States  had  declared  the  penalty  of  disfranchise- 
ment for  participating  in  rebellion  alone. 

Fourth  : That  a person  who  had  engaged  in  rebellion, 
but  had  not  theretofore  held  an  office  under  a “ State”  or 
the  United  States,  or  not  been  a member  of  a “ State  ” 
legislature  or  of  Congress,  and  not  taken,  as  such,  an 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
was  not  disfranchised  or  disqualified  from  voting. 

Fifth  : That  persons  who  were  militia  officers  in  any 
“ State  ” prior  to  the  rebellion  were  not  disfranchised  by 
participating  in  the  rebellion. 

Sixth  : That  “an  act  to  fix  upon  the  person  the  of- 
fence of  engaging  in  rebellion  under  this  law  must  be 
an  overt  and  voluntary  act,  done  with  the  intent  of  aid- 
ing or  furthering  the  common  unlawful  purpose,”  and 
that  “a  person  forced  into  the  rebel  service  by  con- 
scription or  under  a paramount  authority  which  he 
could  not  safely  disobey,  and  who  would  not  have  en- 
tered such  service  if  left  to  the  free  exercise  of  his 
own  will,”  was  not  disfranchised  or  disqualified  from 
voting. 

And  lastly  : That  disloyal  sentiments,  opinions  or 
sympathies,  or  anything  said  or  written  which  fell  short 


138 


RECONSTRUCTION 


of  an  incitement  to  others  to  engage  in  rebellion,  did 
not  disfranchise  or  disqualify  from  voting. 

Some  other  instructions  were  given  which  were  con- 
curred in  by  the  entire  Cabinet,  Mr.  Stanton  included, 
but  the  recital  of  them  is  not  essential  to  this  narra- 
tive. It  must  be  added,  however,  that  the  President’s 
view  of  the  relation  of  the  military  commanders  to  the 
“ State  ” governments  created  under  his  direction  and 
with  his  aid  was  one  which  gave  these  governments  a 
more  independent  and  permanent  character  than  the 
language  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  seemed  to  warrant. 

When,  then,  the  instructions  of  June  20th  to  the  gen- 
m.  _ erals  became  known,  another  bill  was  intro- 
gressionai  in-  duced  into  Congress  and  passed  which  put 

terpretation  of  ....  . r 

the  Recon-  the  Congressional  interpretation  upon  the 

etructiou  Acts.  r.  , , • . , 1 

Reconstruction  Acts. 

It  declared  that  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  these 
Acts  was  that  the  civil  governments  then  existing  in  the 
“ rebel  States  ”of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  etc.,  were  not 
legal  “State  governments,”  and  that,  if  thereafter  they 
should  be  allowed  to  continue  to  exist  at  all,  they  must 
be  subject  in  all  respects  to  the  will  of  the  military  com- 
manders of  the  respective  districts,  and  to  the  para- 
mount authority  of  Congress  ; and  it  provided  that  the 
generals  in  command  of  the  respective  districts  might 
suspend  or  remove  any  person  from  any  office  under 
these  illegal  and  pretended  governments,  and  detail  or 
appoint  some  other  person  to  discharge  the  duties  and 
exercise  the  powers  said  to  pertain  to  such  office.  The 
acts  of  the  district  commanders  in  regard  to  these 
things  were  made  subject  to  the  disapproval  of  the 
General  of  the  army,  but  not  to  that  of  the  President, 
and  stood  until  so  disapproved.  The  same  powers  in 
regard  to  these  matters  were  vested,  by  this  bill,  in  the 
General  of  the  army  as  in  the  district  commanders. 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  139 

but  were  not  accorded  by  it  to  the  President ; and  it 
was  made  the  duty  of  the  General  of  the  army  and  the 
district  commanders  to  remove  from  such  pretended 
offices  “all  persons  who  were  disloyal  to  the  United 
States,  or  who  used  their  official  influence  in  any  man- 
ner to  hinder,  delay,  prevent,  or  obstruct  the  due  and 
proper  administration  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts.” 

The  bill,  furthermore,  provided  that  the  boards  of 
registration  should  have  the  power,  and  that  it  should 
be  their  duty,  to  ascertain  the  fact  as  to  whether  a per- 
son applying  for  registration  as  a voter  was  entitled  to 
registration  under  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  to  re- 
fuse registration,  if  in  their  judgment  he  was  not,  and 
that  the  fact  that  he  was  willing  to  take  the  oath  pre- 
scribed in  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  or  had  taken  it,  was 
not  conclusive  upon  the  registration  boards  in  making 
their  inquiries  and  forming  their  decisions.  And  it, 
finally,  declared  that  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  oath  prescribed  in  the  Reconstruction  Acts  for  per- 
sons who  had  held  office  under  a “ State  ” government 
or  membership  in  a “ State  ” legislature,  before  the 
rebellion,  was  that  whether  such  persons  were  holding 
such  positions  at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  the 
rebellion  or  at  some  time  prior  to  the  same,  and  whether 
they  had  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  or  not,  they  were  disqualified  from 
registration  and  were  disfranchised,  if,  after  holding 
such  positions,  they  had  “ engaged  in  insurrection  or 
rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  given  aid  or  com- 
fort to  the  enemies  thereof  ” ; and  it  gave  to  the  com- 
manders of  the  districts  the  power  to  extend,  in  their 
discretion,  the  time  for  completing  the  original  regis- 
tration of  the  voters,  as  provided  for  in  the  Reconstruc- 
tion Acts,  to  October  1st  following,  and  to  the  boards 
of  registration  the  power,  and  imposed  upon  them  the 


140 


RECONSTRUCTION 


duty,  to  revise,  daring  the  first  five  of  the  last  fourteen 
days  before  any  election  under  the  Reconstruction  Acts, 
the  registration  lists  and  to  strike  off  any  name  from 
said  lists  which,  in  their  judgment,  ought  not  to  be 
there,  and  to  add  any  name,  which,  in  their  judgment, 
ought  to  be  there,  and  required  them  to  disregard  any 
Executive  pardon  or  amnesty  as  relieving  the  disability 
of  any  person  for  registration,  if  such  person  had  com- 
mitted any  act  which  without  such  pardon  or  amnesty 
would  disqualify  him. 

This  bill,  it  will  be  readily  seen,  was  a wholesale  re- 
pudiation of  all  the  instructions  given  by  the  President 
to  the  generals  in  command  of  the  districts  from 
which,  in  the  Cabinet  council,  Mr.  Stanton  had  dis- 
sented. The  President  immediately  realized  this,  of 
course,  and  it  increased  his  distrust  of  Stanton  im- 
mensely. From  that  moment  forward  he  regarded  him 
as  the  spy  of  Congress  upon  all  his  official  acts,  and  he 
was  resolved  to  remove  him  upon  the  first  opportunity, 
that  is,  so  soon  as  Congress  should  adjourn. 

The  bill  passed  the  Houses  on  the  13th  of  July,  was 
presented  to  the  President  for  his  signature  on  the  14th, 
and  on  the  19th  he  returned  it  with  a veto  message  to 
the  House  of  Representatives.  The  President  contended 
in  his  argument  that  this  new  measure  was  not  simply 
an  interpretation  of  the  existing  Reconstruction  Acts, 
but  was  in  many  respects  a large  advance  upon  them. 
The  existing  Acts,  he  contended,  made  the  reconstructed 
The  Preei-  “ State  ” governments  at  the  South  subject 
the^bmfnter-  to  absolute  military  authority  in  many  im- 
feeccmstfac-  portant  respects,  but  not  in  all  respects, 
tion  Acts.  while  the  new  measure  proposed  to  ex- 
tend the  despotism  of  the  military  commanders  over 
everything.  Against  such  a measure,  in  time  of  peace, 
he  protested  as  being  in  violation  of  every  guaranty  of 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OP  RECONSTRUCTION  141 

individual  liberty  contained  in  the  Constitution.  He 
dwelt  upon  the  unfitness  of  military  officers  to  discharge 
the  duties  and  exercise  the  powers  pertaining  naturally 
to  civil  office,  and  he  pointed  out  the  inconsistency,  as  he 
thought,  of  the  declaration  of  Congress  that  the  ten 
“ State”  governments  at  the  South  were  illegal  with  the 
attempt  of  Congress  to  carry  on  these  illegal  “State” 
governments  by  “Federal  agency,”  when  Congress  had 
no  power  to  carry  on  a legal  “ State  ” government  through 
“ Federal  agency  ” ; and  he  stopped,  as  he  thought,  the 
way  of  escape  from  this  argument  by  pointing  out  that 
the  entire  legislation  of  Congress  down  to  the  passage  of 
the  Reconstruction  Acts  distinctly  involved  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  ten  communities  now  to  be  put  under  ab 
solute  military  rule  in  all  respects  as  “States”  of  the 
Union. 

But  the  most  vigorous  and  unanswerable  part  of  the 
message  was  the  protest  against  the  robbery  of  the  consti- 
tutional powers  of  the  Executive  by  the  attempt  of  Con- 
gress, in  this  measure,  to  confer  some  of  those  powers 
upon  other  persons.  The  President  expressed  himself  so 
warmly  upon  this  point,  that  the  Republicans  began  to 
whisper  around  their  suspicions  of  sinister  purposes  on 
his  part,  just  as  if  such  a declaration  to  Congress  itself 
was  not  proof  to  the  contrary.  He  said  : “ Whilst  I hold 
the  chief  executive  authority  of  the  United  States,  whilst 
the  obligation  rests  upon  me  to  see  that  all  the  laws  are 
faithfully  executed,  I can  never  willingly  surrender  that 
trust  or  the  powers  given  for  its  execution.  I can  never 
give  my  assent  to  be  made  responsible  for  the  faithful 
execution  of  laws,  and  at  the  same  time  surrender  that 
trust  and  the  powers  which  accompany  it  to  any  other 
executive  officer,  high  or  low,  or  to  any  number  of  ex- 
ecutive officers.  If  this  executive  trust,  vested  by  the 
Constitution  in  the  President,  is  to  be  taken  from  him 


142 


RECONSTRUCTION 


and  vested  in  a subordinate  officer,  the  responsibility  will 
be  with  Congress  in  clothing  the  subordinate  with  un- 
constitutional power  and  with  the  officer  who  assumes 
its  exercise.” 

The  radical  Republicans  interpreted  this  language,  at 
once,  as  meaning  that  the  President  proposed  to  so  in- 
TJ  . terfere  with  the  execution  of  the  Recon- 

Ideas  and  . . . 

suspicions  struction  Acts  as  to  avoid  their  intent  and 
meaning  of  destroy  their  effect.  And  the  talk  about 
the  mesbage.  impeachment  was  again  revived.  The  Pres- 
ident, however,  meant  nothing  of  the  kind,  and  but  for 
exaggerated  suspicion  and  party  hatred  the  language 
of  the  message  would  have  been  held  to  mean  only  an 
appeal  to  Congress  to  desist  from  its  unlawful  attempt 
to  rob  the  Executive  of  his  constitutional  powers,  and  to 
the  people  to  elect  men  to  Congress  who  would  obey  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution  in  their  legislative  acts. 

The  Houses  passed  the  bill  over  the  President’s  veto 
immediately,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  and  almost 
The  veto  in  a spirit  of  derision.  The  next  day,  July 
overridden.  20th,  Congress  adjourned  to  the  21st  of  the 
following  November. 

The  unfortunate  relations  of  Mr.  Stanton  with  the 
President,  and  with  the  other  members  of  the  Cabinet 
were  the  thing  which  was  destined  to  produce  the  catas- 
trophe. He  had  become  unbearable  to  the  President, 
and  to  the  most  of  his  colleagues.  He  ought  in  all  de- 
cency to  have  resigned  his  portfolio  as  Speed  and  Har- 
lan and  Dennison  had  done  the  year  before.  The  Pres- 
The  suspen-  ident  asked  him  to  resign  in  a note  of  the  5th 
tin11  from 'ofi  of  August.  Stanton,  feeling  sure  of  the  sup- 
fice-  port  of  the  large  majority  in  Congress,  con- 

temptuously refused.  The  President  could  now  in  the 
recess  of  Congress  suspend  him  without  violating  the 
provisions  of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act,  or  raising  the 


CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  143 

question  of  its  constitutionality.  The  President  at  last 
resolved  to  take  the  matter  into  his  own  hands  and  rid 
himself  of  Stanton’s  presence  in  his  confidential  coun- 
sels. On  the  12th  of  August  he  sent  an  executive  order 
to  Stanton  suspending  him  from  the  office  of  Secretary 
of  War,  and  another  to  General  Grant  authorizing  and 
empowering  him  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim. 
Stanton  yielded  to  this  order  under  protest.  He  wrote 
the  President  that  he  could  not  legally  suspend  him 
from  office  and  declared  that  he  submitted  only  to  su- 
perior physical  force.  Grant  accepted  the  appointment, 
although  he  had,  four  days  before,  advised  the  President 
against  disturbing  Stanton.  Grant  entered  upon  the 
duties  of  the  office  at  once,  and  Stanton  went  off  to 
New  England  to  recuperate  health,  spirits  and  courage 
for  his  battle  with  the  President  which  was  bound  to 
come  unless  the  President  should  yield  and  take  him 
back  again,  so  soon  as  Congress  should  assemble. 

By  a series  of  orders  issued  during  the  same  month 
(August)  General  Hancock  was  substituted  for  General 
Sheridan  in  the  command  of  the  fifth  military  district 
and  General  Canby  for  General  Sickles  in  the  command 
of  the  second  district.  Both  of  the  generals  thus  re- 
lieved were  great  favorites  at  the  North,  especially 
Sheridan.  The  President  felt  that  they  were  too  much 
imbued  with  the  military  spirit  to  make  good  adminis- 
trators of  civil  affairs.  But  the  people  of  the 

■i  ii1  Changes 

-North  saw  m these  changes  only  the  purpose  among  the 
of  the  President  to  place  his  political  friends  of  themmtary 
among  the  army  officers  in  command  of  the  dlstncts- 
military  districts,  and  through  them  to  modify  the 
intent  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  in  the  course  of  their 
execution. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  EXECUTION  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS 

The  Attempt  to  Prevent  the  Execution  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts 
in  Mississippi  and  Georgia — The  Case  of  Mississippi  vs.  Johnson 
— The  Case  of  Georgia  vs.  Stanton — The  Operations  of  the 
Commanders — The  Registration — The  Number  Registered — 
The  Change  in  the  Electorate  in  the  South — The  Elections — 
Efforts  of  the  Commanders  to  Get  the  Vote  Out — The  Result  of 
the  Elections — The  Character  of  the  Convention  Delegates 
Chosen — The  Work  of  the  Conventions — The  Vote  upon  Ratifi- 
cation— Fraudulent  Voting  and  Unlawful  Voting — The  Recall 
of  Pope  and  the  Appointment  of  Meade  in  His  Stead — Rejection 
of  the  Constitution  in  Alabama — The  Statute  of  Congress 
Changing  the  Proportion  of  V otes  to  Registration  in  the  Ratifi- 
cation of  a Constitution — Criticism  of  the  Statute— Ratification 
in  Arkansas — Ratification  in  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Florida  and  Louisiana — Second  Attempt  in  Georgia 
to  Obstruct  Reconstruction — Rejection  of  the  Constitution  in 
Mississippi. 

Although  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
had  said,  in  the  case  of  Kendall  vs.  the  United  States, 
u . in  1838,  that  so  far  as  the  President’s 

The  attempt  . , . 

to  prevent  the  power  is  derived  from  the  Constitution 

the  Re  con-  he  is  beyond  the  reach  of  any  other  depart- 
in  Mississippi  ment,  except  m the  mode  prescribed  by  the 
and  Georgia.  constitution,  through  the  impeaching  power, 
and  had  also  indicated,  in  the  cases  of  the  Cherokee 
Nation  vs.  the  State  of  Georgia,  in  1831,  and  Luther 
vs.  Borden,  in  1849,  that  it  had  no  jurisdiction 
over  political  questions,  there  still  prevailed  in  many 
minds  the  idea  that  the  Court  was  the  ultimate  in- 

144 


EXECUTION  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  145 


terpreter  of  the  Constitution  in  all  cases  of  whatever 
nature,  and  that  no  person  was  exempted  from  its  juris- 
diction on  account  of  official  station.  Under  the  influ- 
ence of  this  idea,  W.  L.  Sharkey,  the  ex-provisional 
Governor  of  Mississippi,  appointed  by  President  Johnson 
in  1865,  undertook  to  obtain  from  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  an  injunction  restraining  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  from  carrying  the  Reconstruc- 
tion Acts  of  March,  1867,  into  effect.  He  was  aided  in 
this  attempt  by  the  Hon.  Robert  J.  Walker,  and  their 
client  in  the  case,  as  set  up  by  them,  was  the  “ State  of 
Mississippi.”  In  a powerful  argument,  noted  for  both 
clearness  and  frankness,  Mr.  Johnson’s  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, Mr.  Stanbery,  demonstrated  that  the  President 
of  the  United  States  cannot  be  made  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  any  court,  while  in  office,  except  only 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  the  constitutional 
court  of  impeachment.  The  plea  of  Mr.  Stanbery  is 
also  notable  for  another  thing,  viz. : the  frank  way  in 
which  he  notified  the  Southerners  that  the  President’s 
opposition  to  these  laws  ceased  with  their  successful 
passage  over  his  vetoes,  and  that  the  President  intended 
to  execute  them  in  spirit  and  letter,  as  it  was  his  sworn 
duty  to  do.  The  Court  decided,  in  1866,  in  the  case 
of  Mississippi  vs.  Johnson,  that  “ a bill  praying  an 
injunction  against  the  execution  of  an  act  of 

* The  case  of 

Congress  by  the  incumbent  of  the  presiden-  Mississippi 
tial  office  cannot  be  received,  whether  it  ve' John80n- 
describes  him  as  President  or  as  a citizen  of  a State.” 

Under  the  delusion  that  this  decision  was  based  en- 
tirely upon  the  official  exemption  from  jurisdiction  of 
the  person  sought  to  be  made  defendant,  Hon.  Charles 
J.  Jenkins,  Governor  of  Georgia,  under  the  reconstructed 
constitution  of  1865,  undertook,  as  representing  the 
“ State  of  Georgia,”  to  obtain  an  injunction  against  Stan- 


146 


DECONSTRUCTION 


ton  as  Secretary  of  War,  Grant  as  General  of  the  army 
and  Pope  as  commander  of  the  third  military  district,  re- 
straining them  from  putting  the  Reconstruction  Acts  of 
March,  1867,  into  operation.  Mr.  Stanbery  again  came 
forward,  in  the  case  of  the  State  of  Georgia  vs.  Stanton, 
with  a most  able  argument  against  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Court  over  the  question  involved,  it  be- 
Georgia  vb.  ing,  as  he  contended,  a political  question 
pure  and  simple,  and  the  Court  again  sus- 
tained him,  deciding  that  it  possessed  no  jurisdiction 
over  the  subject-matter  presented  in  the  bill  for  relief. 

The  generals  now  had  free  hand  to  go  ahead  accord- 
ing, pretty  much,  to  their  own  discretion.  The  law 
gave  them,  first  until  September,  and  then 
t i o n s of  The  until  October,  to  complete  the  registration, 
commander.  an(j  ^hey  themselves  appointed  and  extended 
the  times  of  registration  at  will.  They  constituted  the 
boards  of  registry  chiefly  of  army  officers,  Freedmen’s 
Bureau  officers,  discharged  Union  soldiers,  and  negroes. 
Where  white  residents  could  be  found  who  could  take 
the  iron-clad  oath,  the  oath  prescribed  by  Congress 
July  2d,  1862,  they  were  also  used  in  constituting  these 
boards.  The  registration  was  quite  successful  in  bring- 
ing out  most  of  those  qualified  to  register.  The  reason 
for  this  was  not  ready  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the 
whites  in  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  but  it  was  the  calcu- 
The  regia-  lation  that  by  registering  and  not  voting  on 
nation.  the  question  0f  holding  a convention,  or  on 
the  question  of  constitutional  ratification,  one  or  both 
of  these  propositions  might  be  defeated,  since  the  act  of 
March  23d  provided,  as  we  have  seen,  that  a majority  of 
the  registered  voters  must  vote  in  order  to  carry  them 
in  the  affirmative. 

In  Alabama  the  registration  reached  the  number  of 
165,813,  of  whom  104,518  were  negroes  or  colored.  In 


EXECUTION  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  147 

Arkansas  it  reached  the  number  of  66,831,  of  whom 
less  than  half  were  known  to  be  colored,  although  no 
exact  account  of  the  proportion  was  re-  The  n 
ported.  In  Florida  it  reached  the  number  bere  regis- 
of  28,003,  of  whom  16,089  were  colored.  In  tered' 
Georgia  it  reached  the  number  of  191,501,  of  whom 
95,168  were  colored.  In  Louisiana  it  reached  the  num- 
ber of  129,654,  of  whom  84,436  were  colored.  In  Mis- 
sissippi it  reached  the  number  of  139,690,  of  whom,  it 
was  well  known,  a large  majority  were  colored,  although 
no  exact  figures  giving  the  proportions  were  reported. 
In  North  Carolina  it  reached  the  number  of  179,653, 
of  whom  72,932  were  colored.  In  South  Carolina  it 
reached  the  number  of  127,432,  of  whom  80,550  were 
colored.  In  Texas  it  reached  the  number  of  109,130,  of 
whom  49,497  were  colored.  In  Virginia  it  reached  the 
number  of  225,933,  of  whom  105,832  were  colored. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  of  the  ten  “ States  ” to  be 
reconstructed  five  were  to  be  recreated  through  an  elec- 
torate in  which  the  majority  would  be  negroes  and 
mulattoes,  about  all  of  whom  had  been,  three  years  be- 
fore, slaves  ; while  in  the  other  five  the  majority  of  the 
constructing  electorate  would  be  whites  by  a compara- 
tively small  number.  This  was  a tremen-  The  change 
dous  bouleversement  of  the  political  society  iatee£e<the 
of  these  sections.  A large  majority  of  the  9outl1- 
old  leaders  were  disfranchised  completely  and  a goodly 
number  of  the  old  Unionists  were  deterred  by  social  con- 
siderations from  taking  any  part  in  the  work,  while 
negroes,  “poor  white  trash/’  “carpet-baggers”  and  a 
few  self-denying  respectables  formed  the  new  electorate 
for  recreating  “ State  ” governments. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Congress  had  the  constitu- 
tional power  to  do  this  thing,  on  the  theory,  of  course, 
that  these  communities  were  not  “ States  ” of  the  Union  ; 


148 


RECONSTRUCTION 


but  it  was  a reckless  thing,  and  a monstrous  thing. 
Anybody  of  common  sense  and  common  honesty  could, 
at  the  time,  have  foreseen  some  of  the  horrible  results 
which  were  sure  to  follow. 

So  soon  as  the  registration  was  completed,  the  com- 
manders ordered  elections  to  be  held  and  the  vote  to 

The  eiec-  be  taken,  first,  upon  the  question  of  con- 
tiona.  vention  or  no  convention,  and,  at  the  same 

time,  for  the  choice  of  delegates  to  the  conventions. 
The  commanders  did  their  best  to  get  out  the  vote. 
They  met  every  device  for  keeping  the  negroes  away 
from  the  polls  and  foiled  it  by  means  of  their  arbitrary 
powers,  and  they  kept  the  polls  open  for  two  and  three 
days,  and  in  the  case  of  Georgia,  for  five  days.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  there  was  repeating,  although  the 
military  authorities  exerted  themselves  most  sincerely 
to  prevent  it.  Their  purpose  was  not,  in  any  case, 
to  permit  fraud,  but  to  give  every  opportunity  to  the 

Efforts  o f freedmen  to  vote.  Their  efforts  were  aided 
ers  tomgeta the  by  the  fact  that  the  elections  in  the  North- 
vote  out.  ern  “States”  during  the  autumn  showed,  in 
most  quarters,  large  Democratic  gains,  and  by  the  fact 
that  in  one  of  the  great  Northern  “ States,”  Ohio,  the 
proposition  to  enfranchise  negroes  by  an  amendment 
to  the  “ State  ” constitution  was  rejected  by  a large 
popular  majority.  The  effect  of  these  facts  was  to  en- 
courage the  whites  in  the  South,  who  had  registered 
with  the  intention  of  defeating  the  proposed  reconstruc- 
tion by  abstention  from  voting,  to  vote  with  the  hope 
of  securing  a majority  of  the  delegates  to  the  proposed 
conventions. 

The  result  was  that  in  all  the  communities  to  be  re- 
constructed as  “States”  a majority  of  the  registered 
voters  voted  on  the  question  of  convention  or  no  con- 
vention, and  a large  majority  of  those  voting  voted  in 


EXECUTION  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  149 

every  case  for  the  holding  of  the  convention.  The 
figures  were  as  follows  : In  Alabama,  of  the  165,813 
registered  voters,  96,866  voted  on  the  question  of  con- 
vention or  no  convention,  and  90,283  voted 

. . The  result 

for  holding  the  convention.  In  Arkansas,  of  the  eiec- 

of  the  66,831  registered  voters,  41,134  voted 
on  the  question,  and  27,576  of  these  voted  in  favor  of* 
holding  the  convention.  In  Florida,  of  the  28,003  reg- 
istered voters,  14,503  voted  on  the  question,  and  of  these 
14,300  voted  in  favor  of  holding  the  convention.  In 
Georgia,  of  the  191,501  registered  voters,  106,410  voted 
on  the  question,  and  of  these  102,283  voted  in  favor  of 
holding  the  convention.  In  Louisiana,  of  the  129,654 
registered  voters,  79,089  voted  on  the  question,  and  of 
these  75,083  voted  in  favor  of  holding  the  convention. 
In  Mississippi,  of  the  139,690  registered  voters,  76,016 
voted  on  the  question,  and  of  these  69,739  voted  in 
favor  of  holding  the  convention.  In  North  Carolina, 
of  the  179,653  registered  voters,  125,967  voted  on  the 
question  of  convention  or  no  convention,  and  of  these 
93,006  voted  for  holding  the  convention.  In  South 
Carolina,  of  the  127,432  registered  voters,  71,046  voted  on 
the  question,  and  of  these  68,768  voted  for  holding  the 
convention.  In  Texas,  of  the  109,130  registered  voters, 
56,129  voted  on  the  question,  and  of  these  44,689  voted 
for  holding  the  convention.  And  in  Virginia,  of  the 
225,933  registered  voters,  169,229  voted  on  the  question, 
and  of  these  107,342  voted  for  holding  the  convention. 

The  great  mass  of  those  who  registered  and  refrained 
from  voting  were  the  whites  who  were  opposed  to  the 
Congressional  Acts  for  Reconstruction,  and  The  charac- 
hence  the  persons  voting  were  chiefly  the  ventfo^dSei 
newly  enfranchised.  This  was  likewise  true  sates  chosen, 
in  the  voting  for  the  delegates  to  the  conventions,  with 
the  result  that  radical  men  were,  for  the  most  part. 


150 


RECONSTRUCTION 


chosen.  They  were  new  men  to  the  political  society  of 
the  South.  There  were  a few  of  the  old  Whigs  among 
them,  who  had  remained  true  to  the  Union  in  their  senti- 
ments during  the  rebellion,  but  the  most  of  them  were 
“carpet-baggers,”  that  is  adventurers  or  new  settlers 
from  the  North,  “ poor  white  trash  ” and  negroes.  In 
the  South  Carolina  convention  there  were  63  negro  dele- 
gates to  34  white.  No  such  hideous  bodies  of  men  had 
ever  been  assembled  before  upon  the  soil  of  the  United 
States  for  the  purpose  of  participation  in  the  creation 
of  a “ State  ” of  the  Union,  and  but  for  the  control  ex- 
ercised over  them  by  the  military  commanders,  and  the 
co-operation  between  the  commanders  and  the  small 
conservative  white  element  in  these  bodies,  the  result 
of  their  work  would  have  been  the  most  ghastly 
travesty  of  justice,  common-sense,  and  common  honesty 
which  the  republic  had  ever  been  called  upon  to  wit- 
ness. 

During  the  winter  and  spring  of  1867-68  the  work  of 
these  conventions  went  on  under  the  greatest  extrava- 
. gance  and  incompetence  of  every  kind.  The 

The  work  of  0 . r . - ,, 

the  conyen-  constitutions  which  came  from  them  provid- 
ed for  complete  equality  in  civil  rights  and, 
in  some  cases,  in  advantages  of  a social  character,  such 
as  equal  privileges  in  public  conveyances,  etc.  They 
also  not  only  established  negro  suffrage,  as  in  fact  was 
required  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  but  they,  in  most 
cases,  disfranchised  those  whites  whom  the  proposed 
Fourteenth  Amendment  would  disqualify  from  holding 
office.  In  Alabama,  Arkansas  and  Louisiana  they  went 
even  further  than  this  and  disfranchised  also,  in  the 
case  of  the  first  two,  all  who  “ had  violated  the  rules  of 
civilized  warfare,”  and  in  the  case  of  the  last,  all  who  had 
voted  for  secession,  or  had  advocated  treason  against 
the  United  States  in  the  press  or  the  pulpit.  It  is  true 


EXECUTION  OP  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  151 


that  in  most  cases  ways  were  provided  for  removing 
these  disabilities,  bat  they  were  generally  connected 
with  such  self-stultifying  requirements  as  to  make  them 
worthless. 

The  restrictions  upon  eligibility  to  hold  office  or  man- 
date were  in  general  the  same  as  those  imposed  on  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  suffrage,  and  in  some  cases  they  went  even 
further,  as  in  the  cases  of  the  Mississippi  and  Virginia 
instruments,  by  both  of  which  anybody  who  had  volun- 
tarily participated  in  the  rebellion,  or  had  voluntarily 
given  aid  or  comfort  to  those  who  had,  was  disqualified. 

The  next  step  in  the  procedure  was  the  submission  of 
these  constitutions  to  the  voters.  The  registration  was 
effected  in  the  same  manner  as  for  the  vote 
on  the  question  of  holding  the  conventions,  upon  eratmeae 
and  the  election  of  the  delegates ; and  the  tlon' 
elections  were  held,  as  before,  under  the  direction  and 
control  of  the  military  commanders.  The  voting  upon 
the  question  of  ratification  came  off  first  in  Alabama. 
General  Pope  had  issued  orders  that  the  votes  of  persons 
registered  in  one  precinct  might  be  received  in  another, 
and  that  “ State”  officers  and  legislative  members  should 
be  elected  at  the  same  election  with  the  vote  on  ratifica- 
tion, and  by  the  same  voters.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
General  only  desired  to  secure  the  freedmen,  who  were 
then  moving  about  restlessly,  in  their  right  of  suffrage 
under  the  Keconstruction  Acts,  and  to  expedite  the 
process  of  reconstruction  so  far  as  possible.  But  he 
undoubtedly  opened  the  door  to  fraudulent  Fraudulent 
voting  by  offering  unrivalled  opportunities  lawful  vo£ 
for  repeating,  and  he  also  violated  the  law  ins- 
and  practice  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
in  regard  to  the  qualified  electors  of  “State”  officers 
and  legislators.  Such  officers  and  legislators  could  have 
been  constitutionally  elected  only  by  the  electors  desig- 


152 


RECONSTRUCTION 


nated  in  the  constitution  submitted  for  adoption.  The 
qualifications  of  the  electors  who  vote  upon  the  question 
of  the  adoption  of  the  first  “ State”  constitution  are 
necessarily  fixed  by  Congress,  but  Congress  has  no  con- 
stitutional power  to  fix  the  qualifications  of  the  electors 
of  “ State  ” officers  and  legislators.  Neither  has  the  con- 
stitutional convention,  which  frames  the  first  “State” 
constitution  any  such  power,  for  the  constitution  which 
it  frames  is  only  a proposition,  and  ratification  by  the 
electors  designated  by  Congress  is  necessary  to  its  valid- 
ity. Furthermore,  any  resolution  which  it  might  pass 
ordering  the  election  of  “ State  ” officers  or  legislators  by 
the  electors  designated  by  the  Congressional  statute  is 
only  a proposition  to  those  electors,  which  must  be  ac- 
cepted by  them  by  a preliminary  vote  before  they  can 
proceed  to  the  election  of  such  officers  and  legislators. 
The  General  certainly  did  not  understand  these  niceties 
of  constitutional  law  and  practice,  and  his  desire  to 
hurry  up  the  re-establishment  of  civil  government  was 
rather  laudable  than  otherwise.  The  President,  how- 
„ ever,  who  had  in  his  Attorney-General  one 

T li  g recall  ' * 

of  Pope  and  of  the  ablest  lawyers  of  the  country,  under- 
went ofMeade  stood  well  the  constitutional  limitations  upon 
in  his  stead.  Q.eneraps  p0wers  and  duties.  He  recalled 

the  reckless  commander  and  sent  the  more  conservative 
Meade  to  take  his  place,  December  28th,  1867. 

Before  the  election  came  off,  however,  a bill  was  in- 
troduced into  Congress,  and  passed  the  House  of  Repre- 

Rejeetionof  sentatives,  and  was  making  its  way,  a little 
t ioViTAJa-  more  slowly,  but  surely,  through  the  Senate, 
bama.  which  authorized  the  election  of  “ State”  of- 

ficers and  legislators  in  the  communities  suffering  recon- 
struction at  the  same  time  that  the  vote  should  be  taken 
upon  the  ratification  of  the  new  constitutions  and  by  the 
same  electors.  Congress  had  not  a whit  more  power  to 


EXECUTION  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  153 


do  this  than  the  commanders,  and  the  President  knew 
this  well  enough,  but  he  gave  no  instructions  to  Meade, 
and  so  the  commander  permitted  the  voting  for  “ State  ” 
officers  and  legislators  at  the  same  election  that  the  vote 
was  taken  upon  the  question  of  the  ratification  of  the  con- 
stitution and  by  the  same  electors.  But  the  registered 
voters  refrained  from  voting  upon  the  question  of  ratifi- 
cation in  sufficient  numbers  to  reduce  the  vote  to  several 
thousand  less  than  half  the  registration.  The  proposed 
constitution  was  thus  rejected  under  the  provision  of  the 
Reconstruction  Acts  which  required  a vote  exceeding  the 
half  of  the  registration,  as  well  as  a majority  of  that 
vote,  for  ratification.  The  “ State  ” government  chosen 
at  this  same  election  was  thus  in  the  air. 

The  Senate  now  passed  the  House  bill  providing  that 
the  approval  of  a majority  of  those  voting,  no  matter 
what  the  proportion  of  the  vote  to  the  regis-  The  statute 
tration  might  be,  should  be  regarded  as  a dbanginfuf e 
sufficient  ratification  of  the  proposed  “ State  ” votePs°to?egi8- 
constitutions  for  the  communities  suffering  ratification1  of 
reconstruction  ; and  although  this  Act  was  » constitution, 
passed  more  than  a month  after  the  vote  on  the  constitu- 
tion was  taken  in  Alabama,  and  although,  furthermore. 
General  Meade  reported  that  a majority  of  the  registered 
voters  had  not  voted  on  the  question  of  ratification,  and 
that  he  interpreted  this  to  mean  that  a majority  of  the 
registered  voters  did  not  want  the  constitution,  yet 
Congress,  as  we  shall  see  later,  applied  this  new  law  of 
March  11th  to  the  Alabama  election  which  had  taken 
place  in  the  first  days  of  the  preceding  February. 

In  the  original  requirement  that  the  vote  to  be  effec- 
tive must  exceed  half  of  the  registration.  Congress 
was  still  upon  the  ground  of  correct  principle.  When 
it  left  this  ground  it  virtually  accepted  the  principle 
that  republican  “State”  governments  may  be  legiti- 


154 


RECONSTRUCTION 


mately  created  by  a minority  of  the  lawful  voters  against 
the  will  of  a majority  of  the  lawful  voters,  and  that,  too, 
Criticism  of  not  by  allowing  that  minority  to  demonstrate 
this  statute.  political  superiority  to  the  majority  by 

greater  intelligence,  or  shrewder  management,  or  even 
by  brute  force,  but  by  the  aid  of  power  coming  from 
without.  Now  this  is  not,  in  correct  political  science, 
“State”  government  in  a federal  system,  autonomous 
local  government,  at  all.  It  is  provincial  government  in 
local  affairs,  more  or  less  complete  as  the  necessity  for 
the  outside  aid  is  more  or  less  continuous.  The  Repub- 
licans had  denounced  the  Johnson  “ State  ” governments 
upon  the  ground,  among  other  grounds,  that  they  were 
minority  governments,  minority  governments  in  the 
vague  and  uncertain  sense  that  not  a majority  of  the 
adult  males  had  been  enfranchised,  and  not  in  the  clear 
and  distinct  and  unmistakable  sense  that  a minority  of 
the  enfranchised,  supported  by  the  military  power  of 
the  United  States,  might  impose  its  will  upon  a major- 
ity of  the  enfranchised.  There  was  nothing  disloyal 
in  the  registered  voters  of  Alabama  giving  Congress  to 
understand  that  a majority  of  them  preferred  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  military  regime,  or  the  creation  of  a 
Territorial  government  for  them  by  Congress,  to  the 
“State”  constitution  offered  them.  But  it  was  utter 
self-stultification  for  Congress  to  take  the  ground  that 
the  Johnson  “State”  governments  were  unrepublican 
because  they  did  not  enfranchise  all  adult  males  of 
whatever  race,  color,  or  condition  of  mind  or  estate 
and  overthrow  them  on  that  ground,  and  then  proceed 
to  create  new  “ State  ” governments  in  their  places 
upon  the  basis  of  a minority  of  the  already  duly  quali- 
fied and  registered  voters.  No  impartial  student,  at  this 
day,  can  view  this  terrible  inconsistency  in  any  other 
light  than  that  of  a high  political  crime. 


EXECUTION  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  155 


While  the  Senate  was  proceeding  with  the  bill, 
another  of  the  Southern  communities  was  rapidly  ap- 
proaching the  date  fixed  for  voting  upon  the  Ratification 
proposed  “State”  constitution,  viz.,  Ar-  in Arkansas, 
kansas.  The  bill  was  passed  by  Congress  the  day  before 
the  voting  began  in  Arkansas,  but  it  was  not  known 
in  Arkansas  that  it  had  been  passed  until  near  the  close 
of  the  second  day  of  the  election.  It  could,  however, 
be  claimed  that  it  was  applicable  to  the  case,  and  it  cer- 
tainly made  all  figures  unnecessary  except  in  regard  to 
the  actual  voting.  The  “ State”  officers  and  legislators 
under  the  constitution  to  be  adopted  were  chosen  at  the 
same  time,  by  the  Congressional  electorate  in  Arkansas, 
and  not  by  the  “State”  electorate,  created  by  the  new 
constitution. 

In  the  course  of  the  next  two  months,  April  and  May, 
voting  upon  the  question  of  ratifying  the  RatjfiCatjon 
new  “State”  constitutions  took  place  in  j{1n^ortsh0cna™h 
North  and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida  Carolina, 
and  Louisiana.  As  the  Congressional  Act  waandLOTtS- 
of  March  lltli  was  in  full  force  at  this  time,  ana' 
the  result  was  affirmative  in  all  cases. 

During  the  Reconstruction  proceedings  in  Georgia 

Governor  Jenkins  had  refused  to  issue  an  order  to  the 

“State”  Treasurer  to  pay  a sum  of  forty  Second  at. 

thousand  dollars,  on  the  ground  that  the  tempt  in  Geor- 
, ° gia  to  obstruct 

“State  legislature  (Johnson  government)  Reconstruc- 

had  not  made  any  such  appropriation.  For 
this  refusal  Meade  removed  him  and  the  “ State  ” Treas- 
urer and  Controller  General,  and  appointed  military  men 
in  their  places.  These  new  officers  seized  the  “ State” 
buildings,  but  Jenkins  succeeded  in  getting  away  with 
the  money  in  the  treasury.  He  went  to  Washington 
and  undertook  to  institute  a proceeding  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  against  Generals  Grant  and 


156 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Meade  to  restrain  the  officers  appointed  by  Meade  from 
levying  taxes  upon  the  people  of  Georgia,  and  from  col- 
lecting the  same  and  the  other  income  of  the  “ State,” 
as  well  as  from  exercising  other  functions.  The  Court 
■gave  its  permission  to  the  filing  of  the  bill,  but  put  off 
the  hearing  of  the  argument  until  the  next  term,  and 
before  this  arrived,  the  new  constitution  had  been  rati- 
fied. and  new  “State”  officers  elected  along  with  the 
ratification.  In  the  other  communities  mentioned  no 
opposition  to  the  reconstruction  process  was  offered. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  opponents  of  the  proposed 
“State  "constitution  in  Mississippi  went  into  a most  ear- 
Rejection  of  nest  and  energetic  campaign  against  its  ratifi- 
tion  inMissie"  cation  and  succeeded,  at  the  election  on  June 
sippi-  22d,  in  rejecting  the  same  by  between  seven 

and  eight  thousand  majority.  Many  of  the  better  class 
of  negroes  voted  with  their  old  masters,  that  is  with 
such  of  these  as  were  allowed  by  the  Congressional  acts 
to  register  and  vote,  against  ratification.  Those  in  favor 
of  ratification  claimed  that  fraud  was  practised  by 
their  opponents,  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  they  had 
the  elections  in  their  own  hands,  and  they  petitioned 
the  military  authorities  to  put  the  proposed  constitu- 
tion, notwithstanding  its  rejection  at  the  polls,  into 
operation.  This  these  authorities  refused  to  do. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT 

Grant  in  the  War  Office — The  President’s  Message  of  December  3d, 
1867 — The  President’s  Special  Message  Concerning  the  Sus- 
pension of  Stanton — The  Senate  Resolution  in  Regard  to  the 
Suspension  of  Stanton — Grant’s  Disobedience  toward  the 
President — The  Unbearable  Situation  in  which  the  President 
now  Found  Himself— The  Dismissal  of  Stanton  from  Office — 
General  Thomas  Appointed  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim — 
Stanton’s  Resistance — Thomas  and  the  President — The  Attitude 
of  the  Senate  toward  the  Dismissal  of  Stanton— The  Move- 
ments in  the  House  of  Representatives — The  Arrest  of  General 
Thomas — Thomas’s  Second  Attempt  to  Take  Possession  of  the 
War  Office — The  House  Resolution  to  Impeach  the  President 
— The  Withdrawal  of  Stanton’s  Complaint  against  Thomas 
— The  Fear  of  the  Republicans  to  Test  the  Tenure-of-Offiee 
Act  before  the  Courts — The  Managers  of  Impeachment — The 
Charges  against  the  President— The  President’s  Answer  to  the 
Complaint — The  Withdrawal  of  Mr.  Black  from  the  President’s 
Counsel — The  Contents  of  the  President’s  Answer — The  Repli- 
cation of  the  House  to  the  President's  Answer— The  Trial — 
Conduct  of  the  Managers — The  Evidence  in  the  Case — The 
Argument — The  Law  in  the  Case — Mr.  Stanton’s  Violations  of 
Law — The  Nomination  of  General  Schofield  to  be  Secretary 
of  War — The  Vote  upon  Impeachment — The  Truth  of  the  Mat- 
ter—The  Abdication  of  Stanton — Schofield’s  Confirmation  as 
Secretary  of  War,  and  His  Acceptance  of  the  Office. 

During  this  same  period,  another  act  in  the  drama 
of  Reconstruction  was  being  played,  a fit  companion 
piece  to  what  was  occurring  in  the  unhappy  communi- 
ties of  the  South.  It  was  the  attempt  to  dispose  of  the 
President,  and  the  presidency,  by  the  impeachment  of 
the  President. 


157 


158 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  history  of  the  President’s  relations  to  Mr.  Stanton, 
his  Secretary  of  War,  has  already  been  given  down  to 
Grant  in  the  the  suspension  of  Mr.  Stanton  in  August 
war  office.  0f  1867,  and  the  designation  of  General 
Grant  to  succeed  him  ad  interim.  Grant  immediately 
assumed  the  duties  of  the  office,  and  Mr.  Stanton  then 
regarded  General  Grant  as  a friend  of  the  President  in 
the  controversy  between  himself  and  the  President. 

In  his  annual  Message  to  Congress,  the  Fortieth  Con- 
gress, of  December  3d,  1867,  the  President  said  nothing 
The  Presi-  directly  in  regard  to  his  suspension  of  Mr. 
of 11  December  Stanton  from  office.  He  put  forward  a 
3d,  1867.  strong  argument,  couched  in  moderate  and 
respectful  language,  against  the  policy  and  constitution- 
ality of  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  as  measures  establish- 
ing martial  law  in  times  of  peace,  and  as  doing  it  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  negro  rule  over  the  Southern 
communities,  and  he  urged  the  repeal  of  these  Acts, 
and  the  immediate  admission  of  the  Representatives  and 
Senators  from  these  communities,  or  “ States  ” as  he  con- 
sidered them,  to  their  seats  in  Congress.  What  he  said 
upon  these  subjects  is,  for  the  most  part,  entirely  con- 
vincing to  the  impartial  mind,  at  this  day,  and  all  of 
it  was  apparently  animated  with  true  patriotism  and 
earnest  desire  to  promote  the  common  weal.  At  the 
close  of  the  argument,  however,  the  President  intro- 
duced into  his  Message  some  ambiguous  expressions 
which  were  unfortunate,  to  say  the  least,  and  which 
roused  to  a high  degree  the  suspicions  and  the  hatred 
already  entertained  against  him  by  the  radical  Repub- 
licans. 

He  wrote  as  follows:  “How  far  the  duty  of  the 
President  * to  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the  Con- 
stitution’ requires  him  to  go  in  opposing  an  unconstitu- 
tional act  of  Congress  is  a very  serious  and  important 


TIIK  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  159 

question,  on  which  I have  deliberated  much  and  felt 
extremely  anxious  to  reach  a proper  conclusion.  Where 
an  act  has  been  passed  according  to  the  forms  of  the 
Constitution  by  the  supreme  legislative  authority,  and 
is  regularly  enrolled  among  the  public  statutes  of  the 
country,  Executive  resistance  to  it,  especially  in  times  of 
high  party  excitement,  would  be  likely  to  produce  vio- 
lent collision  between  the  respective  adherents  of  the 
two  branches  of  the  Government.  This  would  be  simply 
civil  war,  and  civil  war  must  be  resorted  to  only  as  the 
last  remedy  for  the  worst  of  evils.  Whatever  might 
tend  to  provoke  it  should  be  most  carefully  avoided.  A 
faithful  and  conscientious  magistrate  will  concede  very 
much  to  honest  error,  and  something  eveu  to  perverse 
malice,  before  he  will  endanger  the  public  peace ; and 
he  will  not  adopt  forcible  measures,  or  such  as  might 
lead  to  force,  as  long  as  those  which  are  peaceable  re- 
main open  to  him  or  to  his  constituents.  It  is  true  that 
cases  may  occur  in  which  the  Executive  would  be  com- 
pelled to  stand  on  its  rights,  and  maintain  them  regard- 
less of  all  consequences.  If  Congress  should  pass  an  act 
which  is  not  only  in  palpable  conflict  with  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  will  certainly,  if  carried  out,  produce  immedi- 
ate and  irreparable  injury  to  the  organic  structure  of 
the  Government,  and  if  there  be  neither  judicial  remedy 
for  the  wrongs  it  inflicts  nor  power  in  the  people  to  pro- 
tect themselves  without  the  official  aid  of  their  elected 
defender — if,  for  instance,  the  legislative  department 
should  pass  an  act  even  through  all  the  forms  of  law  to 
abolish  a co-ordinate  department  of  the  Government — 
in  such  a case  the  President  must  take  the  high  respon- 
sibilities of  his  office  and  save  the  life  of  the  nation  at  all 
hazards.  The  so-called  Reconstruction  Acts,  though  as 
plainly  unconstitutional  as  any  that  can  be  imagined, 
were  not  believed  to  be  within  the  class  last  mentioned. 


160 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  people  were  not  wholly  disarmed  of  the  power  of  self- 
defence.  In  all  the  Northern  ‘ States  ’ they  still  held  in 
their  hands  the  sacred  right  of  the  ballot,  and  it  was 
safe  to  believe  that  in  due  time  they  would  come  to  the 
rescue  of  their  own  institutions.  It  gives  me  pleasure 
to  add  that  the  appeal  to  our  common  constituents  was 
not  taken  in  vain,  and  that  my  confidence  in  their 
wisdom  and  virtue  seems  not  to  have  been  misplaced.” 
These  last  words  referred  undoubtedly  to  the  recent 
rejection,  by  popular  vote,  in  a number  of  the  most  im- 
portant Northern  “ States,”  of  proposed  amendments  to 
“ State”  constitutions  conferring  suffrage  upon  negroes. 

Most  of  the  Republicans  in  Congress  interpreted  this 
whole  paragraph  in  the  Message  as  a threat  to  violate 

The  inter  ^he  ^construction  Acts,  although  this  was 
P]acedby  the  disavowed,  rather  indistinctly  it  is  true,  and 
Republicans  to  violate  also  the  Tenure-of- Office  Act.  It 
dent’s  Mee-  is  very  difficult  to  say  what  the  President  was 
aiming  at  in  giving  such  a warning  to  a body 
already  excited  against  him  to  a high  degree.  It  was 
certainly  a faux  pas  of  the  worst  kind,  to  say  the  least 
about  it. 

Just  nine  days  later  the  President  sent  his  special 
Message  to  the  Senate  in  regard  to  his  suspension  of  Mr. 

The  Presi-  Stanton.  The  gist  of  it  was  that  mutual 
MessagePcon-  confidence  between  himself  and  Mr.  Stanton 
suspenSsionhof  no  l°nger  existed,  and  that  when  he  asked 
Stanton.  Mr.  Stanton  to  resign  Mr.  Stanton  had  de- 
clined to  do  so  and  had  strongly  intimated  that  his 
reason  for  declining  was  his  own  lack  of  confidence  in 
the  President’s  patriotism  and  integrity.  The  Presi- 
dent claimed  that  such  an  attitude,  on  the  part  of  a 
subordinate  toward  his  superior,  was  unendurable,  was 
in  fact  official  misconduct  of  a grave  order,  and  he  also 
referred  to  Stanton’s  withholding  Baird’s  telegram  from 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  161 

him  just  before  the  New  Orleans  riot.  The  President 
furthermore  discussed  Mr.  Stanton’s  letter  in  reply  to 
his  order  to  him  suspending  him  from  office  and  com- 
manding him  to  turn  over  the  records  and  property  of 
the  office  to  General  Grant.  This  letter  contained  a 
declaration  by  Mr.  Stanton  denying  the  right  of  the 
President,  under  the  Constitution  and  laws,  to  suspend 
him  from  office,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  and  without  legal  cause,  and  affirming  that  he 
yielded,  under  protest,  to  the  superior  force  wielded  by 
the  General  of  the  Army  who  had  been  designated  to 
succeed  him. 

This  contention  of  Mr.  Stanton  that  the  President 
could  not  suspend  him  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States  gave  the  President  the  op- 
portunity of  saying  that  Mr.  Stanton  must  be  claim- 
ing the  protection  of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act  of  March 
2d,  1867,  and  of  revealing  to  the  Senate  Mr.  Stanton’s 
most  decided  condemnation  of  that  Act  when  it  was  a 
bill  before  the  President.  The  President  asserted  that 
Mr.  Stanton,  as  every  other  member  of  his  Cabinet, 
advised  him  that  the  bill  was  unconstitutional,  in  that 
it  was  a dangerous  encroachment  upon  the  President’s 
constitutional  prerogatives,  and  urged  him  to  veto  it. 
He  also  said  that  all  the  members  of  his  Cabinet  who 
had  been  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln — and  Stanton  was 
one  of  these — appeared  to  be  of  the  opinion  that  their 
tenures  were  not  fixed  or  affected  by  the  provisions  of 
the  bill.  The  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the  President 
evidently  was  that  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act  did  not 
cover  Mr.  Stanton’s  case,  but  left  it  under  the  law  and 
practice  existing  before  the  passage  of  that  measure,  and 
that  if  it  did  cover  it,  the  Act  was  unconstitutional,  and 
was  so  considered  by  Mr.  Stanton  himself,  and  every 
other  member  of  the  Cabinet. 


162 


RECONSTRUCTION 


It  is  hardly  credible  that  the  President  intended  to  rec- 
ognize the  validity  of  tiie  Act  by  sending  this  Message  to 
the  Senate.  It  is  true  that  the  second  section  of  the 
Act  provided  that  the  President  might  suspend  an  offi- 
cer during  a recess  of  the  Senate,  and  designate  an  ad 
interim  successor,  and  must,  within  the  first  twenty 
days  of  the  next  meeting  of  the  Senate,  report  the  sus- 
pension to  the  Senate,  and  it  does  appear,  from  a casual 
view,  that  the  President  was  acting  under  the  authority 
of  this  provision,  or  rather  under  the  duty  imposed  by 
it,  in  suspending  instead  of  removing  Mr.  Stanton  and 
in  making  this  report  of  Mr.  Stanton’s  suspension  to  the 
Senate.  But  the  President  could  claim  that  he  was  pro- 
ceeding under  his  general  constitutional  power  and  duty 
of  suspending  from  office,  as  a power  included  in  the 
power  of  removal,  and  of  sending  such  communications 
as  he  saw  fit  to  Congress  or  to  either  House  thereof. 
And  the  fact  that  he  disputed  the  constitutionality  of 
the  Act  in  the  Message  itself  is  good  internal  evidence 
that  he  did  not  consider  that  he  was  in  any  way  acting 
under  the  authority  granted  to  him  by  it,  or  in  any  way 
estopping  himself,  so  to  speak,  from  making  future  dec- 
larations against  the  constitutionality  of  the  Act,  or  even 
from  disobeying  its  requirements. 

The  Senate,  however,  conceived  c1:  once  that  the  Pres- 
ident was  acting  under  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act,  and 
„ , after  considerable  discussion,  passed  a reso- 

regartuo  the  on  the  13th  day  of  January,  1868, 

suspension  of  which  provided  that,  “ having  considered 
the  evidence  and  reasons  given  by  the  Pres- 
ident in  his  report  of  December  12th,  1867,  for  the 
suspension  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  the  office  of  Sec- 
retary of  War,  the  Senate  does  not  concur  in  such  sus- 
pension.” The  body  then  instructed  its  secretary  to 
send  copies  of  this  resolution  to  the  President,  General 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  163 


Grant  and  Mr.  Stanton.  It  is  also  evident  that  General 
Grant  supposed  the  President  was  acting  under  the 
Tenure-of-Office  Act  both  in  suspending  Stanton,  in 
appointing  himself  ad  interim,  and  in  making  report  of 
these  proceedings  to  the  Senate  ; for  upon  receiving  his 
copy  of  the  Senate’s  resolution  from  the  secretary  of 
the  Senate,  he  immediately  left  the  room  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  locking  the  door  after  him  and  giving  the 
key  to  the  Adjutant-General,  and  repaired  to  the  official 
head-quarters  of  the  General  of  the  army.  Stanton 
manifestly  regarded  the  matter  in  the  same  way,  for 
upon  receiving  his  copy  of  the  notice  of  the  Senate’s 
action,  he  went  to  the  room  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  resumed  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  War  without 
further  ceremony.  He  did  not  even  go  to  see  Grant, 
but  sent  word  over  to  the  head-quarters  of  the  General 
of  the  army  summoning  Grant  to  wait  upon  him  in  the 
Secretary’s  room. 

There  is  no  question  now  in  any  calm  and  impartial 
mind  that  the  Senate  acted  most  inconsiderately,  not  to 
say  wrongfully,  in  passing  that  resolution.  Criticism  of 

The  situation  was  a perfectly  plain  one.  The  senate  res- 
President  and  Stanton  could  not  work  to- 
gether, since  they  had  lost  all  confidence  in  each  other. 
Common-sense  and  common  decency  required  in  such 
a case  the  retirement  of  the  subordinate.  The  Senate 
itself  had  committed  itself  to  this  view  in  the  discussion 
and  votes  upon  the  Tenure-of-Office  bill,  in  its  original 
form  and  in  its  final  form.  General  Grant,  the  man 
who  stood  first  in  the  confidence  of  the  whole  people, 
was  in  possession  of  the  War  Office.  He  had  held  it 
already  nearly  six  months,  and  had  in  that  short  time 
improved  the  administration  of  it  very  greatly.  At  the 
end  of  the  six  months,  at  farthest,  the  President  was 
held  by  the  law  of  1795,  a law  whose  constitutionality 


164 


RECONSTRUCTION 


he  did  not  dispute,  to  make  a nomination  to  the  Sen- 
ate of  a permanent  incumbent.  The  Senate  would 
then  be  able  to  prevent  the  appointment  of  any  person 
to  the  office  who  did  not  have  the  confidence  of  the 
Senate  and  the  country.  No  possible  harm  could  thus 
have  come  to  the  country  from  acquiescing  in  Stanton’s 
suspension,  and  it  is  hard  to  see  that  anything  but  harm 
did  come  to  it  in  not  doing  so.  No  perfectly  fair  and 
unprejudiced  mind  could  have  failed  to  see  that  then  ; 
but  the  radical  Republicans — and  most  of  the  Repub- 
licans in  Congress  at  that  moment  were  radical,  or  at 
least  intensely  partisan — were  bent  upon  attacking  and 
destroying  the  President  in  any  way  they  could.  They 
were  ready  to  lay  traps  for  him,  and  then  to  so  excite 
him  by  encroachments  upon  the  prerogatives  and  the 
dignity  of  his  office  as  to  make  him  fall  into  them. 
They  were  determined  to  sustain  Stanton  against  the 
President,  the  subordinate  against  his  lawful  superior, 
simply  because  they  despised  the  President.  They 
claimed  that  the  welfare  of  the  country  demanded  it, 
and  most  of  them  probably  thought  so,  but  everybody 
can  see  the  fallacy  of  that  now,  and  anybody  fit  to  be  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States  ought  to  have  been  able 
to  see  it  then. 

It  is  also  a question  whether  General  Grant  did  not 

act  hastily,  and  inconsiderately,  not  to  say  wrongfully, 

Criticism  in  yielding  the  post  without  dispute  to  Mr. 

of  General  Stanton.  The  President  certainly  under- 
Gr&nt  s act  " 

stood  General  Grant  to  promise  him  to  hold 
on  to  the  office  in  case  the  Senate  should  not  approve 
of  Stanton’s  suspension,  and  thereby  compel  Stanton  to 
have  recourse  to  the  courts  to  regain  possession,  and  thus 
secure  a judicial  determination  of  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act,  or  to  give  the  office  back  to 
the  President  before  the  Senate  reached  its  determina- 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  165 

tion,  so  that  lie  might  have  opportunity  to  put  it  into 
the  hands  of  a man  who  would  be  willing  to  incur  this 
responsibility  ; and  the  President  was  able  to  back  this 
understanding  by  the  testimony  of  five  members  of  his 
Cabinet.  On  the  other  hand,  General  Grant  was  just  as 
sincere  in  his  view  that  his  remarks  to  the  President  on 
the  subject  did  not  amount  to  a promise,  and  if  they 
did,  he  had  fulfilled  it  when  on  the  11th  of  January, 
two  days  before  the  Senate  acted,  he  indicated  to  the 
President  his  unwillingness  to  involve  himself  in  a law- 
suit to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  Tenure-of-Office 
Act.  It  is  true  that  when  he  spoke  with  the  President, 
on  the  11th,  he  did  not  offer  to  resign  the  office,  and  that 
it  was  understood  that  he  would  see  the  President  again 
on  the  subject,  and  that  he  did  not  see  the  President,  nor 
attemjit  to  see  him,  before  the  Senate  acted.  But  he 
explained  this  apparent  failure  to  keep  faith  by  saying 
that  he  was  extremely  busy  during  the  two  days  between 
the  11th  and  the  13th,  and  that  the  Senate  had  acted 
much  more  hastily  than  he  expected  it  would. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  General  Grant  thought  the 
Senate  would  accpiiesce  in  Stanton’s  suspension,  and  was 
taken  by  surprise  when  it  did  not  do  so,  and  that  until  the 
action  of  the  Senate  on  the  13th,  he  had  never  seriously 
considered  that  any  opportunity  or  necessity  for  a ju- 
dicial proceeding  would  arise.  When,  then,  the  alterna- 
tive was  suddenly  presented  to  him  of  obeying  the 
Tenure-of-Office  Act,  or  disputing  its  constitutionality 
by  forcibly  holding  possession  of  the  War  Office,  he  de- 
cided that  it  would  be  wrong  for  the  General  of  the 
army  to  assume  the  attitude  of  defiance  to  Congress, 
whatever  a civilian  might  consider  his  duty  to  be. 
He  thought  that  such  an  act  on  his  part  would  look 
like  a contest  between  the  civil  and  military  powers  of 
the  Government,  and  he  was  unwilling  to  provoke  it. 


166 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  President  blundered  very  seriously  when  he  did 
not  accept  the  explanation  from  General  Grant  and 
The  Presi-  drop  the  matter.  The  General  was  friendly 
fn  Ws  attitude  *n  his  feelings  toward  the  President,  and 
toward  Grant.  when  Stanton  repossessed  himself  of  the  War 
Office  in  his  cavalier  way,  without  seeking  any  under- 
standing with  Grant,  and  sent  the  General  a rude  sum- 
mons to  wait  upon  him,  the  General  was  very  naturally 
and  properly  indignant  with  Stanton.  The  way  was 
here  open  for  the  President  to  make  a close  friend  of 
General  Grant,  by  simply  appreciating  Grant’s  point  of 
view  in  surrendering  the  War  Office,  and  saying  nothing 
more  about  it.  But  the  President  was  not  a prudent 
man  when  crossed  in  his  purposes.  He  generally  thought 
that  the  motives  of  all  men  who  differed  with  him 
were  bad.  He  showed  in  this  trait  his  common  origin 
and  his  vulgar  breeding.  He  thought  that  Grant  had  de- 
ceived him  and  made  a scapegoat  of  him,  and  he  resolved 
to  have  it  out  with  him.  He  did  not  seem  to  under- 
stand at  all  that  in  an  issue  of  veracity  between  Gen- 
eral Grant  and  himself,  the  country  would  believe  Grant, 
no  matter  who  told  the  truth,  and  who  the  lie.  The 
utter  impossibility  of  coming  out  winner  in  a contest 
with  a national  hero,  no  matter  what  the  merits  of  the 
case  might  be,  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  him  at 
all.  And  so  he  plunged  into  that  unfortunate  con- 
troversy with  General  Grant  in  the  public  prints,  which 
made  Grant  his  enemy  for  life,  at  a time  when  he 
needed  most  his  friendship,  and  might  have  had  it  by 
the  exercise  of  a little  common  prudence. 

The  outcome  of  this  whole  course  of  crimination  and 
recrimination  was  that  the  country  came  to  the  belief 
that  the  President  first  tried  to  force  the  responsibility 
of  a violation  of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act  upon  the 
popular  General  of  the  army,  and  then,  when  the  Gen- 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  167 

eral  foiled  him  in  his  purpose,  undertook  to  impugn  his 
honor  and  his  integrity,  and  destroy  his  character  before 
the  public.  An  impartial  study  of  the  facts  The  result 
and  the  correspondence  will  not  sustain  any  vLsy%etween 
such  view  now,  but  in  the  state  of  feeling  ^nd^enerai 
then  prevailing,  no  such  impartial  study  was  Grant 
possible.  The  President  ought  to  have  known  this,  and 
to  have  controlled  his  indignation  until  a more  propi- 
tious time. 

General  Grant’s  letter  closing  the  controversy  is  dated 
February  11th.  In  the  interval  between  his  quitting 
the  War  Office  and  this  latter  date,  the  Presi-  Grant’s  dis- 
dent  instructed  the  General  not  to  obey  any  toward 'the 
orders  from  Stanton  until  he  knew  they  Pre8ident- 
came  from  the  President.  This  instruction  was  given, 
first,  verbally  on  January  19th.  Grant  demanded,  on 
January  24th,  a written  order  from  the  President  on  the 
subject,  and  repeated  this  request  on  the  28th.  The 
President  replied  on  the  29th  that  “ General  Grant  is 
instructed,  in  writing,  not  to  obey  any  order  from  the 
War  Department,  assumed  to  be  issued  by  the  direction 
of  the  President,  unless  such  order  is  known  by  the 
General  commanding  the  armies  of  the  United  States 
to  have  been  authorized  by  the  Executive.”  Grant  re- 
sponded, on  January  30th,  that  he  had  been  informed  by 
the  Secretary  of  AVar  that  he  (the  Secretary)  had  not 
received  from  the  Executive  any  order  or  instructions 
limiting  or  impairing  his  authority  to  issue  orders  to  the 
army  as  had  theretofore  been  his  practice  under  the  law 
and  the  customs  of  the  Department,  and  that  while  this 
authority  to  the  War  Department  was  not  countermanded 
it  would  be  satisfactory  evidence  to  him  (the  General) 
that  any  orders  issued  from  the  War  Department  by  the 
formal  direction  of  the  President  were  authorized  by 
the  Executive.  This  was  coming  very  nearly  up  to  the 


168 


RECONSTRUCTION 


line  between  obedience  and  disobedience  on  the  part  of 
the  General  of  the  army  toward  the  constitutional 
Commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the 
United  States.  The  General  must  have  himself  felt 
that  he  was  on  rather  shaky  ground,  for  in  the  closing 
paragraph  of  his  letter  of  February  11th  he  disclaimed 
any  intention  of  disobeying  “ any  legal  order  of  the 
President  distinctly  communicated.”  But  this  was  still 
an  ambiguous  situation.  Who  was  to  determine  whether 
an  order  of  the  President  to  the  General  was  legal  or 
not  ? If  the  President,  then  there  was  no  need  of  quali- 
fying the  word  “ order  ” by  the  word  “ legal.”  The 
language  used,  therefore,  indicates  that  the  General  con- 
sidered it  within  his  power  to  decide  this  question.  But 
if  the  subordinate  can  determine  upon  the  legality  of 
the  orders  of  his  superior,  and  disobey  them  in  case  he 
considers  them  illegal,  then  farewell  to  all  discipline  in 
civil  or  military  service.  It  is  very  clear  from  these 
expressions  of  the  General  that  Stanton’s  successful  in- 
subordination was  already  exercising  its  demoralizing 
influence,  and  was  confusing  the  minds  of  those  high  in 
command  in  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  their  duties 
and  responsibilities. 

The  situation  was  utterly  unbearable  for  the  Presi- 
dent. Here  was  the  constitutional  Executive  of  the 
The  unbear  United  States,  the  Commander-in-chief  of 
able  situation  the  army  and  the  navy,  virtually  excluded 
President  now  by  one  of  his  own  subordinates  from  any 
found  himself.  rejatjon  to  the  business  of  one  of  the  most 
important  departments  of  the  Government  for  which  he 
alone  was  responsible,  and  his  subordinate  sustained  in 
this  attitude  by  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Matters  were  now  rapidly  approaching  a crisis  which 
could  be  avoided  only  by  the  resignation  of  the  Presi- 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  169 


dent  or  by  the  retreat  of  the  Senate  from  its  indefens- 
ible position.  If  both  stood  firm  the  clash  must  follow/ 
and  that  too  very  quickly.  On  the  21st  (Feb-  The  dis- 
rnary)  it  came.  The  President  addressed  an  Canton'  from 
order  of  that  date  to  Mr.  Stanton  dismissing  offioe- 
him  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  and  another 
order  of  the  same  date  to  General  Lorenzo  Thomas, 
Adjutant-General  of  the  army,  commanding  him  to 
take  possession  of  the  War  Office  and  administer  its 
affairs  ad  interim.  He,  on  the  same  date,  informed  the 
Senate  of  his  action,  and  transmitted  to  that  body  a 
copy  of  the  orders  to  Stanton  and  Thomas. 

Upon  receiving  the  order,  General  Thomas  repaired 
immediately  to  the  Secretary’s  room  in  the  War  Office, 
and  handed  to  Mr.  Stanton  both  of  the 

. . General 

documents,  they  having  been  put  into  his  Thomas  ap- 
hands  by  the  President’s  private  secretary,  tary  of  war 
Upon  reading  the  one  addressed  to  himself,  adinterim- 
Mr.  Stanton  immediately  asked  General  Thomas  whether 
he  wished  him  to  vacate  at  once  or  would  give  him  . time 
to  remove  his  private  property.  Thomas  replied,  “act 
as  you  please.”  Stanton  then  read  the  order  addressed 
to  Thomas  designating  him  Secretary  ad  interim , and 
asked  Thomas  for  a copy  of  it. 

Thomas  then  left  the  Secretary’s  room  and  went  into 
his  old  room,  the  Adjutant-General’s  room,  to  have  a 
copy  of  the  order  made.  He  returned  at  Stanton’s 
once  with  it,  and  when  he  handed  it  to  Mr.  resi8tance- 
Stanton,  the  latter  said:  “1  do  not  know  whether  I will 
obey  your  instructions,  or  whether  I will  resist  them.” 
General  Thomas  had  certified  the  correctness  of  the 
copy,  and  had  signed  himself  Secretary  of  War  ad  in- 
terim. The  two  then  went  into  General  Schriver’s 
room  just  across  the  hallway,  and  there  Stanton  declared 
outright  that  Thomas  should  not  issue  orders  as  Secre- 


170 


RECONSTRUCTION 


tary  of  War,  and  that  if  he  did  he  (Stanton)  would 
countermand  them,  and  he  then  and  there  directed 
General  Schriver  and  General  Townsend,  both  of  whom 
were  present,  to  disobey  any  orders  coming  from  General 
Thomas  as  Secretary  of  War.  Mr.  Stanton  then  caused 
General  Townsend  to  prepare  a written  order  to  Thomas, 
signed  by  Mr.  Stanton  as  Secretary  of  War,  which  was 
as  follows  : “ Sir  : I am  informed  that  you  presume  to 

issue  orders  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim.  Such  con- 
duct and  orders  are  illegal,  and  you  are  hereby  com- 
manded to  abstain  from  issuing  any  orders  other  than 
in  your  capacity  as  Adjutant-General  of  the  army.” 

General  Thomas  then  went  over  to  the  White  House 
to  see  the  President  about  the  matter.  He  told  the 
Thomas  and  President  of  his  conversation  with  Mr.  Stan- 
ce President.  ton,  ancj  repeated  to  him  Stanton’s  replies 
verbatim.  The  President  simply  said  to  him  : “ Very 
well ; go  and  take  charge  of  the  office  and  perform  the 
duties.”  Thomas  did  not,  however,  return  to  the  Sec- 
retary’s room  in  the  War  Office  that  day,  and  did  not 
see  Mr.  Stanton  again  on  that  day. 

While  these  things  were  occurring  in  the  executive 
offices  matters  were  seething  at  the  other  end  of  the 
avenue.  The  Senate  was  deliberating,  if  we 

l q6  attitude 

of  the  senate  may  call  such  a stormy  procedure  as  took 
dismissal  of  place  a deliberation,  upon  the  President’s 
communication.  It  very  quickly  passed  the 
following  resolution:  “Whereas,  the  Senate  have  re- 
ceived and  considered  the  communication  of  the  Pres- 
ident stating  that  he  had  removed  Edwin  M.  Stanton, 
Secretary  of  War,  and  had  designated  the  Adjutant- 
General  of  the  army  to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim : Therefore,  Resolved  by  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  That  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  the  President  has  no  power  to  remove 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  171 


the  Secretary  of  War  and  designate  any  other  officer  to 
perform  the  duties  of  that  office  ad  interim .”  A copy 
of  this  resolution  was  sent  to  the  President,  another 
copy  to  Mr.  Stanton,  and  another  to  General  Thomas. 

The  excitement  in  the  other  House  was  still  more  in- 
tense and  irrational.  The  Senate  resolution  had  hardly 
passed  when  the  radical  Mr.  Covode  pre-  The  move- 
sented  a motion  to  the  effect  that  “ Andrew  House  of  Rep- 
Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  be  resentatives. 
impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.”  This 
resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  House 
on  Reconstruction,  which  was,  as  we  have  seen,  com- 
posed of  members  nearly  all  of  whom  were  radical  Re- 
publicans. 

Encouraged  and  strengthened  by  these  movements  in 
the  legislature,  and  hearing  that  Thomas  had  threatened 
to  force  his  way  into  the  office,  Mr.  Stanton 

i o 6 arrest 

resolved  to  forestall  all  possible  movements  of  General 

...  . . Thomas. 

of  General  ihomas  for  gaining  possession  of 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  War.  He  procured  a warrant 
of  arrest  for  the  General,  and  on  the  next  morning,  the 
morning  of  the  22d,  the  warrant  was  served  on  Gen- 
eral Thomas  just  after  he  had  risen  from  his  bed,  and 
before  he  had  taken  his  morning  meal.  The  officers 
who  arrested  him,  the  Marshal  of  the  District,  and  his 
assistant,  and  a constable,  took  the  General  at  once  be- 
fore Judge  Cartter,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  District  of 
Columbia.  On  the  way  from  the  General’s  residence  to 
the  court-room,  the  General  asked  the  officers  to  allow 
him  to  see  the  President,  and  inform  the  latter  of  his 
arrest.  The  Marshal  went  with  the  General  to  the 
White  House,  and  was  present  at  the  interview  between 
the  General  and  the  President.  It  lasted  but  a mo- 
ment. The  General  told  the  President  that  he  was 
under  arrest.  The  President  replied  that  he  was  satis- 


172 


RECONSTRUCTION 


fied  to  have  the  case  go  into  the  courts,  that  he  wanted 
it  judicially  determined.  He  then  directed  the  General 
to  go  to  the  Attorney-General,  Mr.  Stanbery.  The 
Marshal  permitted  him  to  call  at  Mr.  Stanbery’s  apart- 
ment in  his  hotel,  and  inform  the  Attorney-General  of 
his  arrest.  He  then  took  him  before  Judge  Cartter. 
Nobody  was  with  the  General  before  the  Judge,  except 
the  officers  who  had  arrested  him.  The  Judge  held 
him  to  bail  in  the  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars  to  appear 
on  the  following  Wednesday  morning,  the  26th.  After 
about  an  hour  friends  of  the  General  came  in  and  signed 
his  bail  bond,  and  the  General  was  released,  the  Judge 
informing  him  that  he  was  not  suspended  from  any  of 
his  official  functions.  The  General  then  went  back  to 
the  White  House  and  informed  the  President  of  his  re- 
lease under  bail,  and  the  President  again  replied  that  he 
wanted  the  case  in  the  courts. 

Finally,  the  General  went  over  to  the  rooms  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  War.  There  he  found  some  six  or  eight  mem- 
Thomas’s  bers  of  Congress  with  Mr.  Stanton,  evidently 
tempt  ”0  take  awaiting  the  denouement.  He  demanded  the 
possession  of  0ffice.  Stanton  ordered  him  to  his  room  as  Ad- 

the  W ar  Of- 

fice-  jutant-General.  He  refused  to  obey.  He  de- 

manded the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War  a second  and  a 
third  time,  and  a second  and  a third  time  Stanton  refused 
to  yield  it  to  him  and  ordered  him  to  his  room  as  Adju- 
tant-General. The  General  then  left  the  room  of  the 
Secretary  of  War,  and  went  across  the  hall  into  General 
Schriver’s  room.  Stanton  followed  him  and  asked  him 
if  he  insisted  on  acting  as  Secretary  of  War.  The  Gen- 
eral replied  that  he  did,  and  would  demand  the  mails  of 
the  War  Office.  The  two  then  fell  into  a friendly  chat, 
General  Thomas  saying  that  he  had  had  nothing  to  eat 
or  drink  that  day  and  requesting  Mr.  Stanton  the  next 
time  he  might  have  him  arrested  not  to  do  it  before 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  173 

breakfast,  and  Stanton  appealing  to  Schriver  to  bring 
out  his  whiskey,  which  Schriver  did,  and  the  two  men, 
Thomas  and  Stanton,  drank  a little  together  on  Stan- 
ton’s invitation.  With  this  Thomas’s  attempt  to  get 
possession  of  the  War  Office  seems  to  have  ended.  On 
the  same  day  the  President  sent  to  the  Senate  for  con- 
firmation as  Secretary  of  War  the  name  of  Thomas 
Ewing,  Sr.  Mr.  Ewing  was  a man  of  undoubted  ability 
and  of  the  purest  loyalty.  He  had  been  one  of  Lincoln’s 
best  friends  and  supporters  and  was  the  father-in-law 
of  General  Sherman  ; but  the  Senate  denied  that  the 
President  had  any  power  to  send  in  a nomination,  that 
is,  denied  that  there  was  a vacancy. 

On  the  same  day,  also,  the  22d,  the  Reconstruction 
Committee  of  the  House,  to  whom  the  resolution  for 
impeaching  the  President  had  been  referred.  The  House 
reported  it  back  with  the  recommendation  ^peac^t he 
that  it  be  passed,  and  the  chairman,  Mr.  TraMMA 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  urged  that  it  might  pass  without  de- 
bate. But  the  members  began  at  once  to  debate  it  hotly, 
and  continued  to  do  so  through  the  day  and  deep  into 
the  night.  The  following  day  was  Sunday,  the  23d.  The 
House  had,  therefore,  one  day  of  recess  in  which  to  cool 
down.  But  on  Monday  the  angry  determination  of  the 
Republican  leaders  was  even  more  manifest  than  on  the 
preceding  Saturday.  All  day  long  the  war  of  words 
went  on.  The  reproach  and  the  odium  heaped  upon 
the  President  were  simply  immeasurable.  Read  from 
the  point  of  view  of  to-day,  and  at  this  distance  from 
the  event,  most  of  it  appears  highly  extravagant,  and 
some  of  it  ridiculous  and  even  puerile.  Late  in  the 
afternoon  the  vote  was  reached,  by  application  of 
the  previous  question  rule.  The  House  resolved  to 
impeach  the  President  before  the  Senate  by  a vote  of 
126  to  47.  All  those  voting  in  the  affirmative  were 


174 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Republicans,  and  all  those  voting  in  the  negative  were 
Democrats. 

By  another  strict  party  vote  the  House  authorized  the 
Speaker  to  appoint  a committee  to  acquaint  the  Senate 
The  com-  with  its  resolution  to  impeach  the  President 
Houle  on  im-  before  that  body,  and  another  committee  to 
peachment.  draw  up  the  articles  of  impeachment.  The 
Speaker,  Mr.  Colfax,  appointed  Mr.  Stevens  and  Mr 
Bingham  to  constitute  the  first  committee,  and  Mr. 
Boutwell,  Mr.  Stevens,  Mr.  Bingham,  Mr.  Wilson,  Mr. 
Logan,  Mr.  Julian  and  Mr.  Ward  to  constitute  the  sec- 
ond. This  committee  immediately  set  about  its  work, 
and  on  the  29th  was  ready  to  report. 

Meanwhile  the  day  for  General  Thomas  to  appear  in 
court,  February  26th,  arrived.  By  this  time  the  General 
had  taken  legal  advice,  and  the  plan  of  his  counsel  was  to 
refuse  to  give  further  bail,  allow  him  thus  to  be  commit- 
ted to  jail,  then  sue  out  a writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  from  a 
United  States  judge,  and  bring  in  this  way  the  question  of 
the  constitutionality  of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act  to  judi- 
cial determination.  But  Judge  Cartter  foiled  this  plan. 
The  with  accor(ling  to  the  word  of  Judge  Luke  P.  Po- 
stanton’lcon/  ^an(^  Vermont,  who  drew  the  complaint 
plaint  against  against  Thomas,  by  declining  to  make  any 
further  order  requiring  bail,  and  on  the  same 
day  Mr.  Stanton  withdrew  the  complaint,  and  the  case 
was  thus  prevented  from  reaching  the  United  States 
courts  at  all. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  Republicans  were  afraid 
to  have  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act  tested  judicially  They 
The  fear  of  preferred  recourse  to  the  Court  of  Impeach 
cans^otestthe  ment  to  settle  the  matter  so  far  as  President 
ficeAcTbefore  Johnson  was  concerned.  It  is  true  that 
the  courts.  Stanton  alleged  that  he  brought  the  case 
against  Thomas  in  order  to  test  judicially  the  right  ot 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  175 


Thomas  to  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  and  that  he 
withdrew  the  complaint  as  superfluous  after  the  House  of 
Representatives  had  resolved  to  impeach  the  President, 
but  that  may  have  been  a mere  legal  form  of  excuse. 

Three  days  after  this,  as  we  have  seen,  the  committee 
charged  with  preparing  the  articles  of  impeachment 
reported  to  the  House.  They  were  debated  The  man_ 
until  March  3d,  when  they  were  adopted  by  agers  of  im- 
a strict  party  vote,  and  the  managers  to  con- 
duct the  prosecution  were  elected.  They  were  Messrs. 
Bingham,  Boutwell,  Wilson,  Butler,  Williams,  Logan 
and  Stevens. 

Disregarding  the  legal  order  and  form  of  the  eleven 
articles  of  impeachment,  we  may  say  briefly  that  the 
charges  against  the  President  were  : The  chargeg 

First,  that  he  violated  the  Tenure -of-  against  the 
Office  Act  in  issuing  an  order  deposing  Stan- 
ton from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  and  another 
order  appointing  Thomas  to  the  office  of  Secretary  of 
War  ad  interim. 

Second,  that  he  violated  the  Anti-conspiracy  Act  of 
July  31,  1861,  in  conspiring  with  Thomas  to  expel  Stan- 
ton by  force  from  the  War  Office,  and  to  seize  upon  the 
property  and  papers  of  the  United  States  in  the  War 
Office,  and  to  unlawfully  disburse  the  money  appropri- 
ated for  the  military  service  and  the  Department  of  War. 

Third,  that  he  violated  the  Act  of  March  2,  1867, 
which,  among  other  things,  directed  that  the  military 
orders  and  instructions  of  the  President  and  Secretary 
of  War  should  be  issued  through  the  General  of  the 
army,  by  attempting  to  induce  General  Emory,  the 
commander  of  the  troops  around  Washington,  to  disre- 
gard this  law  and  take  his  orders  immediately  from  the 
President. 

And  fourthly,  that  he  committed  high  misdemeanors 


176 


RECONSTRUCTION 


in  his  speeches  denouncing  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress, 
and  declaring  it  to  be  a Congress  of  only  a part  of  the 
“ States.” 

These  charges  were  presented  by  the  managers  of  the 
impeachment  to  the  Senate  on  March  5th,  the  day  upon 
which  the  Senate  organized  itself  as  a Court 

The  charges  „ T ° 

presented  to  oi  impeachment,  by  assembling  under  the 

the  Senate.  presidency  of  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United 
States,  who  administered  the  oath  to  the  Senators 
as  members  of  the  court.  The  court  directed  its  ser- 
geant-at-arms to  serve  its  summons  upon  the  President 
to  appear  before  its  bar  and  answer  to  the  charges  pre- 
ferred against  him,  and  then  adjourned  to  the  13th  of 
the  month.  On  the  13th  the  court  reassembled.  The 
chief  clerk  read  the  return  of  the  sergeant-at-anns  to 
ThePresi-  the  writ  of  summons,  to  the  effect  that  he 
aenc'e entered  had  served  the  writ  upon  the  President  at 
by  his  counsel.  seven  o’clock  p.M.  of  Saturday,  the  7th  day 
of  the  month  ; and  the  President  entered  his  appearance 
by  his  counsel,  Henry  Stanbery,  Benjamin  R.  Curtis, 
Jeremiah  S.  Black,  William  M.  Evarts  and  Thomas  A.  R. 
Nelson,  and  asked  for  forty  days  for  the  preparation 
of  his  answer  to  the  charges.  The  first  four  of  these 
men  were  the  most  noted  constitutional  lawyers  of  the 
country,  and  the  fifth  was  one  of  Mr.  Johnson’s  loyal 
Tennessee  friends  and  his  chief  ally  in  the  Union  cause 
in  Tennessee  during  the  years  of  sorest  trial.  Mr. 
Stanbery  had  resigned  the  office  of  Attorney-General 
of  the  United  States  m order  to  take  the  leading  part 
in  the  defence  of  the  President. 

The  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  very  ungen- 
The  preei-  erously  objected  to  giving  the  President  any 
to^he  c°onir  time  at  all  for  the  preparation  of  his  answer 
plaint.  further  than  what  he  had  had  since  the 

service  of  the  summons  upon  him,  but  the  Senate  re- 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  KEMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  177 

solved  to  give  him  ten  days,  that  is  until  March  23d. 
Upon  the  latter  day  the  Senate  resumed  its  sitting  as  a 
Court  of  Impeachment,  and  the  President’s  counsel 
appeared  with  his  answer  to  the  charges  made  against 
him. 

An  incident  occurred  at  this  point  in  the  history  of 
the  procedure,  which  should  be  related,  although  it 
interrupts  somewhat  the  thread  of  the  nar-  ^ 

rative.  It  was  the  disappearance  of  Mr.  drawai  of  Mr. 
Black  from  among  the  counsel  for  the  Pres-  the  President’s 
ident,  and  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Groesbeck  coun8e1' 
in  his  place.  It  was  the  gossip  among  the  enemies  of 
the  President,  and  this  gossip  was  sedulously  spread 
abroad  throughout  the  whole  country  by  them,  that 
Black  on  examining  the  case  had  become  convinced  of 
the  President’s  guilt  and  had  retired  from  the  case  for 
this  reason,  and  for  the  further  reason  that  he  had  be- 
come disgusted  with  the  President’s  conduct.  It  did 
not  become  known  until  later  that  during  this  time 
Judge  Black  was  counsel  for  a firm  composed  of  one 
Patterson  and  one  Marguiendo,  which  firm  claimed  a 
guano  island  in  the  West  Indies,  called  Alta  Vela,  and 
that  one  of  Judge  Black’s  colleagues  in  the  prosecution 
of  the  Patterson-Marguiendo  claim,  one  J.  W.  Shaffer, 
procured  a letter  of  the  date  of  the  9th  of  March,  1868, 
that  is  one  week  after  the  House  of  Representatives  had 
resolved  to  impeach  the  President,  signed  by  General 
Benjamin  F.  Butler  and  approved  by  John  A.  Logan, 
J.  A.  Garfield,  W.  H.  Koontz,  J.  K.  Moorhead,  Thad- 
deus  Stevens,  J.  G.  Blaine  and  John  A.  Bingham, 
some  of  them  the  most  bitter  among  the  President’s 
enemies,  which  contained  the  statement  that  these  gen- 
tlemen were  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  had  the  exclusive  right  to  the  guano 
beds  of  Alta  Vela  island,  and  an  expression  of  their  sur- 


178 


RECON  STRU  CTION 


prise  that  the  President  had  not  upheld  this  right  by 
force  against  the  claims  of  the  Dominican  Government 
to  the  island,  and  caused  this  letter  to  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  President  on  the  16th  day  of  March,  and 
that  on  the  17th  or  18th  of  March  Judge  Black  had  an 
interview  with  the  President  and  urged  him  to  send  an 
armed  vessel  of  the  United  States  to  Alta  Vela  to  take 
possession  of  the  island,  and  that  the  President,  view- 
ing this  approach  to  him  at  this  time  as  an  attempt  to 
take  advantage  of  his  situation,  refused,  and  that  on 
the  next  day,  the  19th  of  March,  Judge  Black  declined 
to  appear  further  as  the  President’s  counsel  in  the  im- 
peachment trial. 

It  must  have  taken  a good  deal  of  self-control  on 
the  part  of  the  President,  in  possession  of  all  these 
facts,  to  keep  them  quietly  to  himself  for  more  than  a 
month  from  the  time  of  Judge  Black’s  retirement  from 
his  case,  while  his  enemies  were  pointing  the  finger  of  a 
supposed  triumphant  scorn  at  him  as  being  unworthy 
to  have  so  honest  a man  as  Judge  Black  among  his 
counsel,  and  then  to  allow  them  to  be  given  out  only 
under  provocation  from  the  managers  of  the  impeach- 
ment, taunting  him  with  his  treatment  of  Judge  Black, 
and  with  Judge  Black’s  withdrawal  from  his  case. 

But  to  return  to  the  President’s  answer  to  the  charges 
against  him.  Disregarding  again  legal  verbiage  and 
The  con-  order,  the  President  answered  substantially 
Pree  ident’a  ^liat  Stanton’s  case  was  not  affected  by  the 
answer.  Tenure-of-Office  Act,  and  that  he  held  his 
office,  according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  wording  of  his  commission,  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  President ; that  even  if  Stanton’s 
case  were  covered  by  the  Act,  the  President  was  within 
his  right  and  was  not  thereby  committing  any  crime  or 
misdemeanor  at  all,  to  so  act  as  to  make  up  an  issue  be- 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  179 

fore  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  whereby 
the  constitutionality  of  the  Act  might  be  tested  ; that 
the  authority  given  to  General  Thomas  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  War  ad  interim  was  not  an  appointment  nor 
an  attempt  to  make  an  appointment,  but  was  only  a 
designation  of  a person  to  act  temporarily  until  an 
appointment  could  be  made  by  and  with  the  consent 
of  the  Senate,  a thing  which  the  President  was  empow- 
ered to  do  by  the  Act  of  February  13th,  1795,  still  in 
force  ; that  he  had  not  entered  into  any  conspiracy  with 
Thomas  or  anybody  else  to  force  Stanton  out  of  the  War 
Office,  or  to  seize  the  property  and  papers  of  the  United 
States  in  the  War  Office,  that  he  could  not  in  fact  do  so, 
since  Stanton  was  not  lawfully  in  the  War  Office,  and 
since  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  the  ulti- 
mate lawful  custodian  of  the  property  and  papers  of  the 
United  States  in  the  War  Office,  but  that  his  communi- 
cations with  Thomas  were  orders  from  the  President 
to  a subordinate  officer,  to  whom  the  President  gave 
no  authority  to  use  force  for  their  execution,  and  who 
did  not  use  any  force  in  his  attempts  to  execute  them, 
the  intention  of  the  President  only  being,  if  his  author- 
ity should  be  resisted  by  Mr.  Stanton,  to  create  an  issue 
before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and 
secure  thereby  a judicial  determination  of  the  rights 
and  powers  of  the  parties  concerned,  and  not  to  do  any- 
thing unlawful  ; that  he  had  never  undertaken  to  in- 
duce General  Emory  to  take  his  orders  immediately 
from  himself  in  violation  of  the  Act  of  March  2d,  1867, 
which  provided  that  all  of  the  military  orders  and  in- 
structions issuing  from  the  President  and  the  Secretary 
of  War  should  pass  through  the  hands  of  the  General  of 
the  Army,  but  that  he  had  only  expressed  to  General 
Emory,  as  he  had  to  Congress,  his  conviction  that  the 
Act  was  in  violation  of  the  Constitution,  which  latter  con- 


180 


RECONSTRUCTION 


ferred  upon  the  President  the  Commandership-in-chief 
of  the  army  and  the  navy  ; and  finally,  that  his  speeches 
were  simply  the  expression  of  his  opinions  as  a free  citi- 
zen of  the  Republic,  which  right  was  guaranteed  to 
him  and  to  every  other  citizen  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  and  could  not  be  made  out  in  any  way  to  have 
any  of  the  qualities  of  a crime  or  a misdemeanor,  and 
that  his  declaration  that  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  was  a 
Congress  of  only  a part  of  the  “ States  ” was  intended  by 
him  in  no  other  sense  than  that  of  an  assertion  that  ten 
“States”  of  the  Union  were  not  represented  in  it,  all  of 
which  ought  to  be  so  represented  when  they  should  send 
loyal  men  to  take  seats  therein,  and  that  he  had  never 
intended  by  this  declaration  to  deny  the  validity  of  the 
acts  of  the  Congress  or  its  power  to  originate  and  adopt 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

After  the  filing  of  this  answer,  the  counsel  of  the 
President  asked  the  Court  of  Impeachment  for  thirty 
days’  time  after  the  replication  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives to  this  answer  should  be  filed  for  the  prepar- 
ation of  the  President’s  case.  But  the  managers  on  the 
part  of  the  House  again  very  ungenerously  opposed  giving 
them  any  time  at  all  for  this  purpose.  The  debate  over 
this  point  lasted  until  after  the  replication  of  the  House 
was  filed  on  the  following  day,  that  is  on  the  24th  of 
March.  The  Court  of  Impeachment  then  decided  to 
give  them  until  March  30th,  and  ordered  the  trial  to 
proceed  on  that  day. 

The  replication  filed  by  the  House  of  Representatives, 
The  replica  on  ^ie  26th,  was  an  exception  to  the  answer 
«on  of^the  of  the  President  as  insufficient,  a denial  of 
President's  all  the  averments  of  the  answer,  a declara- 
tion of  the  guilt  of  the  President  of  the  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  charged,  and  an  offer  to  prove 
the  same. 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  181 


On  the  30th,  the  trial  opened  with  the  fierce,  not  to 
say  brutal,  attack  of  Mr.  Butler  on  the  President. 
During  the  entire  course  of  the  trial,  from 
the  30th  of  March  until  the  16th  of  May,  the  The  tna1' 
managers  followed  a line  of  conduct  which  no  impartial 
student  of  this  day  can  fail  to  condemn,  and  which, 
even  in  that  time  of  hostile  passion  against  conduct  of 
the  President,  lost  to  them  a large  measure  the  maIlagers- 
of  popular  favor.  They  tried  to  prevail  upon  the  Court 
of  Impeachment  to  regard  itself  as  a political  body  in- 
stead of  a court,  to  renounce  all  limitations  upon  its 
powers,  and  to  accept  common  rumors  against  the 
President  as  good  evidence  of  his  guilt.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  objected  to  the  introduction  of  evidence  by 
the  President  to  prove  the  purpose  of  his  acts,  and  to 
show  the  advice  upon  which  he  had  proceeded  in  their 
commission.  They  succeeded  in  inducing  the  Court  of 
Impeachment  to  refuse  to  hear  the  President’s  evidence 
upon  these  points,  although  the  Chief  Justice  had  ruled 
in  favor  of  its  reception.  There  is  no  doubt  that  their 
cause  was  greatly  weakened  in  the  public  esteem  by  this 
manifestation  of  partisanship  on  the  part  of  the  court. 

The  evidence  in  the  case  showed  no  conspiracy  with 
Thomas  to  do  anything,  and  no  orders  to  him  to  use 
any  force  in  what  he  was  authorized  to  do, 

“ . T h 6 e v i - 

and  no  attempt  to  induce  General  Emory  to  dence  in  the 

violate  any  law  or  any  orders  received  from  case' 
or  through  the  General  of  the  Army  or  any  other  legal 
authority.  The  case,  thus,  rested  chiefly  upon  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  President  had  violated  the 
Tenure-of-Office  Act ; and  the  transactions  of  the  Presi- 
dent in  regard  to  this  subject  were  matters  of  record. 

When  one,  at  this  lapse  of  time  from  the  events, 
peruses  the  calm,  dignified,  convincing  and  masterful 
arguments  of  the  President’s  counsel,  and  compares 


182 


RECONSTRUCTION 


them  with  the  passionate,  partisan  harangues  of  the 
managers,  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand  how  the  lat- 
The  argu-  ter  could  have  made  any  serious  impression 
ment'  at  all.  There  was  only  a single  point  upon 

the  law  seemingly  involved  in  the  case  in  regard  to  which 
they  held  the  better  reason.  That  was  the  claim  on  their 
part  that  the  President  had  no  right  to  violate  an  act  of 
Congress  for  the  purpose  of  testing  its  validity  before  the 
United  States  courts,  or  for  any  other  purpose.  They 
argued  with  much  force  that  to  allow  the  President  the 
power  to  violate  an  act  of  Congress,  or  to  omit  to  execute 
an  act  of  Congress,  in  order  to  make  up  an  issue  before  the 
courts  upon  the  question  of  its  constitutionality,  would 
be  virtually  to  attribute  to  the  President  the  once  hated 
royal  power  of  suspending  the  law  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
Executive.  They  contended  that  the  veto  power  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  President  for  the  purpose  of 
allowing  him  to  be  heard  at  the  proper  time,  and  to  act 
at  the  proper  time,  in  regard  to  the  passage  of  any  law, 
and  that  no  other  power  was  given  him  in  relation  to  the 
subject ; that  after  he  had  exhausted  this  power,  he  was 
bound  to  execute  the  legislation  of  Congress,  and  could 
not  suspend  it  or  violate  it  for  any  purpose  whatsoever  ; 
and  that  the  constitutionality  of  any  of  the  acts  of  Con- 
gress could  be  raised  before  the  courts  only  by  persons 
not  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  law  and  having 
such  interests  affected  by  the  act  in  question  as  would 
warrant  a judicial  procedure. 

Judge  Curtis  was  so  influenced  by  the  consideration 
that  to  claim  such  a power  for  the  President  would  give 
him  a double  veto  upon  all  of  the  acts  of  Congress,  a 
veto  when  acting  as  a part  of  the  legislature  in  the  en- 
actment of  law,  and  then  a purely  executive  veto  which 
could  be  overcome  only  by  an  adverse  judicial  decision, 
that  he  expressed  his  contention  on  the  subject  in  very 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  183 

cautious  language.  He  declared  that  the  President 
claimed  no  such  general  power  as  that,  but  he  said 
“ when  a question  arises  whether  a particular  law  has 
cut  off  a power  confided  to  him  by  the  people  through 
the  Constitution,  and  he  alone  can  raise  that  question, 
and  he  alone  can  cause  a judicial  decision  to  come  be- 
tween the  two  branches  of  the  Government  to  say  which 
of  them  is  right,  and  after  due  deliberation,  with  the 
advice  of  those  who  are  his  proper  advisers,  he  settles 
down  firmly  upon  the  opinion  that  such  is  the  character 
of  the  law,  it  remains  to  be  decided  by  you.  Senators, 
whether  there  is  any  violation  of  his  duty  when  he  takes 
the  needful  steps  to  raise  that  question  and  have  it  peace- 
fully decided.” 

The  great  lawyer  refused  thus  to  commit  himself  upon 
this  fundamental  question  of  constitutional  law.  And 
well  he  might,  for  to  recognize  any  such  power  in  the 
President  would  be  to  enable  him  to  rule  with  such  arbi- 
trariness as  to  upset  the  principles  and  practices  of  all 
free  government.  The  President  can  constitutionally 
defend  his  prerogatives  with  the  veto  power,  a power 
which  nothing  short  of  a two-thirds  majority  of  both 
Houses  of  Congress  can  overcome,  and  he  has  no  other 
power  of  defence  confided  to  him  by  the  Constitution.  He 
must  execute  the  laws  passed  over  his  veto  upon  matters 
which  in  his  opinion  touch  his  executive  prerogatives, 
just  the  same  as  upon  all  other  matters,  and  if  persons 
not  connected  with  the  administration  of  the  laws  do 
not  call  such  measures  in  question  before  the  courts,  the 
remedies  provided  by  the  Constitution  for  the  people 
of  the  United  States  are  either  the  election  of  members 
of  Congress  who  will  repeal  the  enactments,  or  else  the 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  so  as  to  repeal  them. 
It  was,  however,  a question  whether,  in  showing  the  sole 
purpose  of  making  an  issue  before  the  courts,  the  Presi- 


J84 


KECONSTEUCTIOlSr 


dent  wonld  not  clear  himself  of  any  criminal  intent. 
Happily  his  case  did  not  require  this,  as  was  demon- 
strated by  his  counsel  and  by  Senators  Trumbull  and 
Fessenden  in  their  opinions. 

The  law  governing  the  President’s  case  was  perfectly 
clear  to  anyone  who  could  divest  himself  of  political 
The  law  in  prejudice  and  of  personal  hostility.  It  was 
the  case.  briefly  this.  By  an  Act  of  the  First  Congress, 
of  the  date  of  August  7th,  1789,  Congress  interpreted 
the  Constitution  as  giving  the  President  the  power  to 
remove  any  officer  of  the  United  States,  except  judges 
of  the  United  States  courts,  at  his  discretion,  as  an  in- 
cident of  his  sole  executive  responsibility,  and  in  an  es- 
pecial sense  recognized  this  constitutional  power  as  be- 
longing to  the  President  in  the  case  of  the  heads  of  the 
governmental  departments,  the  members  of  the  Cabinet, 
as  they  afterwards  came  to  be  called,  since  these  persons 
stood,  and  must  stand,  in  a peculiarly  confidential  rela- 
tion to  the  President,  as  his  official  advisers.  This  in- 
terpretation of  the  Constitution  as  to  the  President’s 
power  of  removal  and  the  practice  built  upon  it  re- 
mained untouched  by  the  Congress  until  the  2d  of 
March,  1867,  when,  as  we  have  seen,  Congress  enacted, 
“that  every  person  holding  any  civil  office  to  which  he 
has  been  appointed  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate,  and  every  person  who  shall  be  hereafter 
appointed  to  any  such  office,  and  shall  become  duly 
qualified  to  act  therein,  is  and  shall  be  entitled  to  hold 
such  office  until  a successor  shall  have  been  in  like  man- 
ner appointed  and  duly  qualified,  except  as  herein  other- 
wise provided:  Provided,  That  the  Secretaries  of  State, 
of  the  Treasury,  of  War,  of  the  Navy,  and  of  the  In- 
terior, the  Postmaster-General,  and  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, shall  hold  their  offices  respectively  for  and  during 
the  term  of  the  President  by  whom  they  may  have  been 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  185 

appointed,  and  one  month  thereafter,  subject  to  removal 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.” 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  the  Tenure-of- Office 
bill  as  it  originated  in  the  Senate  the  members  of  the 
Cabinet  were  entirely  excepted  from  its  operation  ; that 
the  House  in  passing  the  bill  included  them ; that  the 
Senate  would  not  agree  to  their  inclusion  ; that  the  bill 
was  then  sent  to  a conference  committee ; that  this 
committee  invented  the  compromise  contained  in  the 
proviso ; that  this  proviso  was  understood  to  give  to 
each  President  the  power  to  choose  his  own  Cabinet 
officers  once  during  his  term,  and  therefore  to  remove 
any  Cabinet  officer  not  originally  appointed  by  him,  but 
holding  under  a commission  from  a former  President, 
and  remaining  in  office  only  by  the  sufferance  of  the  ex- 
isting President ; that  this  was  especially  the  true  mean- 
ing of  the  proviso  in  regard  to  those  Cabinet  officers 
then  in  office,  but  who  had  been  appointed  and  com- 
missioned by  Mr.  Lincoln  during  his  first  term  to  hold 
during  the  pleasure  of  the  President ; and  that  it  was 
upon  this  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  proviso 
that  the  Senate  voted  the  resolution  of  the  conference 
committee. 

From  all  this  it  is  entirely  clear  that  the  President 
had  the  legal  power  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton,  no  matter 
whether  the  Tenure-of -Office  Act  was  constitutional  or 
not,  simply  because  his  case  was  excepted  by  the  proviso 
in  the  first  article  in  the  Act  from  the  operation  of  the 
Act,  and  was  left  to  the  operation  of  the  laws  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  the  Act  was  passed.  There  is  little 
question  now  that  that  Act  was  not  in  accordance  with 
a fair  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  but  it  was  not 
at  all  necessary  to  hold  that  view  in  order  to  clear  the 
President  of  the  accusation  of  having  violated  the  Con- 
stitution and  the  laws  of  the  land. 


186 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  law  in  reference  to  the  ad  interim  appointment, 
or  designation,  of  General  Thomas  was  equally  plain  to 
the  impartial  eye.  The  Constitution  provides  only  for 
vacancies  that  may  happen  during  the  recess  of  the  Sen- 
ate, and  empowers  the  President  to  fill  all  such  by  grant- 
ing commissions  which  shall  expire  at  the  end  of  its 
next  session.  By  an  act  of  May  8th,  1792,  Congress 
empowered  the  President,  in  case  of  the  death,  sickness, 
or  absence  from  the  seat  of  government,  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  the  Secretary 
of  War,  whether  these  events  should  occur  during  a 
session,  or  a recess,  of  the  Senate,  “ to  authorize  any 
person  or  persons,  at  his  discretion,  to  perform  the  du- 
ties of  the  said  respective  offices  until  a successor  be 
appointed,  or  until  such  absence  or  inability  by  sickness 
should  cease.” 

Another  act  of  Congress  of  February  13th,  1795,  em- 
powered the  President,  in  case  of  vacancy  from  any 
cause  in  the  offices  of  Secretary  of  State,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  or  Secretary  of  War,  happening  either  during 
a recess  or  a session  of  the  Senate,  “ to  authorize  any 
person  or  persons,  at  his  discretion,  to  perform  the 
duties  of  the  said  respective  offices  until  a successor  be 
appointed  or  such  vacancy  be  filled,”  provided,  however, 
that  no  one  vacancy  should  be  supplied  in  that  manner 
for  a longer  time  than  six  months. 

It  will  be  seen  that  neither  of  these  statutes  provided  for 
the  temporary  filling  of  vacancies  in  any  of  the  Depart- 
ments, except  those  of  State,  the  Treasury,  and  War. 
In  practice,  however,  the  Presidents  have  followed  the 
analogies  of  the  law  of  1795,  when  it  became  necessary,  in 
their  opinion,  to  make  a temporary  designation  in  the 
other  Departments.  On  the  22d  of  September,  1862, 
President  Lincoln  appointed  J.  B.  L.  Skinner  Post- 
master-General ad  interim.  It  was  Mr.  Lincoln  himself 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  187 

who  called  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  fact  that  he 
had  no  literal  legal  authority  for  this,  and  who  on  J anu- 
ary  2d,  1863,  asked  Congress  to  extend  the  Act  of  May 
8th,  1792,  so  as  to  cover  the  cases  of  the  other  Depart- 
ments, and  empower  the  President  to  make  ad  interim. 
appointments  to  fill  vacancies  in  these  Departments  hap- 
pening on  account  of  death,  sickness,  or  absence  from  the 
seat  of  government.  Why  the  President  did  not  ask  for 
the  extension  of  the  Act  of  February  13th,  1795,  which 
covered  all  vacancies  happening  from  whatever  cause,  in- 
stead of  the  Act  of  1792,  which  covered  those  only  which 
might  happen  from  death,  sickness,  or  absence  from  the 
seat  of  government,  we  do  not  know.  We  only  know 
that  in  January,  1863,  both  the  President  and  Congress 
were  greatly  pressed  by  the  exigencies  of  the  war,  and 
did  things  generally  in  haste  and  without  much  consid- 
eration. In  answer  to  the  President’s  suggestion.  Con- 
gress passed  the  Act  of  February  20th,  1863,  extending 
the  Act  of  1792  so  as  to  cover  all  the  executive  Depart- 
ments in  the  cases  of  vacancy  provided  for  in  that  Act, 
viz.,  by  cause  of  death,  sickness,  or  absence  from  the 
seat  of  Government — adding  resignation — and  limiting 
the  President,  however,  in  these  appointments  to  per- 
sons already  officers  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  Depart- 
ments, and  providing  that  no  one  vacancy  should  be  so 
supplied  for  a longer  period  than  six  months.  The 
vacancies  which  might  happen  from  expiration  of  term 
or  by  removal  were  not  at  all  provided  for  by  the  Act  of 
1863  ; and  as  the  Act  of  1863  did  not  expressly  repeal 
the  Act  of  1795,  but  only  declared  that  “all  acts  and 
parts  of  acts  inconsistent  with  this  act  are  hereby  re- 
pealed,” the  Act  of  1795  remained  in  force  as  to  all 
vacancies  caused  by  expiration  of  term  or  by  removal, 
whether  happening  during  a recess  or  a session  of  the 
Senate. 


188 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Neither  did  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act  of  1867  repeal 
the  Act  of  1795  in  regard  to  first  vacancies  happening 
among  the  Secretaries  of  Departments  by  other  causes 
than  those  provided  for  in  the  Act  of  1863,  either  ex- 
pressly or  by  implication,  since  these  first  vacancies 
were  expressly  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  Act 
of  1867,  by  the  proviso  attached  to  the  first  article. 
And  even  if  it  should  be  held  that  the  Act  of  1867  did 
repeal  that  of  1795  entirely,  yet,  in  that  it  did  not  forbid 
the  President  to  make  ad  interim  appointments  in  the 
cases  where  a Secretary’s  term  expired,  or  a Secretary 
was  lawfully  removed  by  him,  the  President’s  designa- 
tion of  Thomas  could  not  be  considered  as  a violation  of 
law  but  only  as  an  act  without  warrant  of  law,  the  very 
kind  of  an  act  committed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  appoint- 
ment of  Skinner  as  Postmaster-General  ad  interim  in 
1862,  and  committed  by  other  Presidents  in  other 
cases. 

The  managers  made  much  of  the  argument  that  the 
President  had  recognized  the  validity  of  the  Tenure-of- 
Office  Act  in  suspending  Stanton  the  preceding  August, 
and  reporting  his  suspension  to  the  Senate,  and  in  noti- 
fying the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  suspension, 
as  provided  in  the  Act,  and  asserted  that  he  was  there- 
fore estopped  from  denying  its  constitutionality.  But 
while  it  can  be  easily  shown  that  these  acts  of  the  Presi- 
dent did  not  at  all  militate  against  his  claim  that  other 
parts  of  the  statute  were  unconstitutional,  still  this  was 
not  u,t  all  necessary  to  the  President’s  defence,  under 
the  view  here  advanced  of  the  relations  between  the 
Acts  of  1867,  1863,  and  1795.  It  made  no  difference, 
under  this  view,  whether  the  Act  of  1867  was,  or  was 
not,  constitutional  and  valid.  In  either  case  the  Presi- 
dent had  violated  no  law,  either  constitutional  or  statu- 
tory. 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  189 

The  fact  is  that  Mr.  Stanton  and  those  who  abetted 
him  were  the  violators  of  law.  Every  official  act  which 
he  committed  after  receiving  the  notification  Mr  gtan 
from  the  President  of  his  removal,  on  the  ton’s  viou- 

tions  of  law. 

21st  of  February,  was  a usurpation  ol  gov- 
ernmental powers  by  a private  citizen,  and  the  gather- 
ing of  armed  men  about  him  with  the  purpose  of  sus- 
taining him  in  holding  on  to  the  War  Office  after  his 
dismissal  by  the  President  was  treason.  It  is  a ques- 
tion whether  his  official  acts  after  the  13th  of  Jan- 
uary and  down  to  February  21st  were  not  also  usurpa- 
tions. That  depends  upon  whether  the  Tenure-of-Office 
Act  was,  or  was  not,  constitutional,  and  whether,  if 
it  were,  the  right  of  a member  of  the  Cabinet,  sus- 
pended from  office,  to  resume  the  functions  of  the  office, 
after  disapproval  of  the  suspension  by  the  Senate,  was 
made,  by  the  Act,  to  apply  to  such  members  of  the 
Cabinet  as  were  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  first 
article  of  the  Act  by  the  proviso  to  that  article.  The 
best  Eepublican  lawyers  in  the  Senate,  Trumbull,  Fes- 
senden, Grimes  and  Doolittle,  took  the  view  of  the  law 
in  the  President’s  case  as  here  explained.  They,  with 
one  other  Republican,  Van  Winkle  of  West  Virginia, 
filed,  after  the  vote  on  impeachment,  opinions  in  the 
case  expressing  substantially  this  view. 

It  is  now  known  that  during  the  trial  some  of  these 
men  expressed  to  one  of  the  President’s  counsel  the  be- 
lief that  Mr.  Johnson  could  not  be  convicted  Thg 
upon  the  law  and  evidence  in  the  case,  and  non  of  Gener- 
that  should  the  Senate  vote  to  remove  him,  beiecretaryof 
“it  would  be  done  wholly  from  supposed  War' 
party  necessity,”  and  from  fear  of  what  the  President 
might  do  in  case  he  were  acquitted,  and  that  they  sug- 
gested to  this  member  of  the  President’s  counsel  the 
wisdom  of  the  President’s  sending  to  the  Senate,  at  that 


190 


KECONSTRU  CTION 


juncture,  a nomination  for  the  Secretaryship  of  War, 
which  would  allay  all  reasonable  apprehension  that  the 
President  would,  if  acquitted,  use  the  War  Department 
for  the  accomplishment  of  any  arbitrary  purposes,  and 
that  they  mentioned  General  Schofield  as  a man  who 
would  be  satisfactory.  These  communications  were 
made  about  the  20th  of  April.  The  President  was  im- 
mediately informed  of  them,  as  was  General  Schofield, 
and,  on  April  24th,  the  President  nominated  General 
Schofield  to  the  Senate  to  be  Secretary  of  War.  Whether 
this  move  on  the  part  of  the  President  influenced  any 
Senator  to  vote  for  acquittal  is  unknown.  It  certainly 
served  to  allay  popular  apprehension,  if  the  testimony 
of  the  newspapers  of  the  day  may  be  taken  on  that 
point. 

Fifty-four  Senators  from  the  twenty-seven  “States” 
represented  constituted  the  membership  of  the  Court  of 
The  vote  Impeachment  under  the  presidency  of  the 
upon  im-  Chief  Justice.  The  President  must,  there- 
fore,  have  nineteen  votes  m order  to  escape 
conviction.  Of  these  fifty-four,  only  eight  were 
Democrats.  It  was  practically  certain  that  all  of 
these  would  vote  for  acquittal.  He  needed,  therefore, 
at  least  eleven  Republican  votes  in  his  favor.  The  clos- 
ing of  the  case  by  the  prosecution  occurred  on  the  6th  of 
May,  and,  on  the  7th,  the  court  passed  the  resolution 
to  take  the  vote  of  its  members  upon  the  articles  of  im- 
peachment on  the  12th.  On  that  day  Mr.  Chandler  of 
Michigan  informed  the  court  that  his  colleague,  Mr. 
Howard,  was  too  ill  to  appear,  and  asked  the  court  to 
adjourn  to  the  16th,  in  order  to  give  Mr.  Howard  the 
opportunity  to  be  present.  The  court  agreed  to  this 
request.  On  the  16th,  with  all  the  members  present,  the 
voting  began.  The  last  article,  the  eleventh,  was,  by  an 
order  of  the  court,  taken  first,  and  the  Chief  Justice 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  KEMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  191 

put  the  question  to  each  Senator  : “ Mr.  Senator — how 
say  you  ? Is  the  respondent  Andrew  Johnson,  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States,  guilty  or  not  guilty  of  a 
high  misdemeanor,  as  charged  in  this  article  ?"  Thirty- 
five  votes  were  cast  in  the  affirmative,  and  nineteen  in 
the  negative.  So  soon  as  it  was  known  that  the  Pres- 
ident had  been  acquitted  upon  this  article,  a motion 
was  made  by  Mr.  Williams  of  Oregon  to  adjourn  the 
court  to  the  26th.  After  the  announcement  of  the  vote 
by  the  Chief  Justice,  this  motion  was  carried  and  the 
court  adjourned  to  the  26th.  On  that  day  it  reassem- 
bled and  proceeded  to  vote  upon  the  second  article  and 
then  on  the  third,  with  the  same  result  as  upon  the 
eleventh.  Whereupon  Mr.  Williams  moved  that  the 
Senate  sitting  as  a Court  of  Impeachment  adjourn  sine 
die,  and  the  motion  was  carried  by  a vote  of  34  to  16, 
4 not  voting.  The  Republicans  who  voted  “ not  guilty  ” 
were  Messrs.  Dixon  of  Connecticut,  Doolittle  of  Wiscon- 
sin, Fessenden  of  Maine,  Fowler  of  Tennessee,  Grimes 
of  Iowa,  Henderson  of  Missouri,  Norton  of  Minnesota, 
Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Eoss  of  Kansas,  Trumbull  of 
Illinois,  and  Van  Winkle  of  West  Virginia.  The  coun- 
try and  the  Republican  party  itself  were  placed  under 
the  deepest  obligation  to  these  men  for  their  courage 
and  independent  action.  They  saved  the  country  from 
the  direst  results  of  the  great  political  scandal  of  the 
age,  and  they  saved  the  Republican  party  from  the  com- 
mission of  a deed  which  would  have  destroyed  its  hold 
upon  the  people. 

The  truth  of  the  whole  matter  is  that,  while  Mr. 
Johnson  was  an  unfit  person  to  be  President  of  the 
United  States — which  maybe  also  affirmed  The  truth  of 
of  some  others  who  have  occupied  the  high  the  raatter- 
place — he  was  utterly  and  entirely  guiltless  of  the 
commission  of  any  crime  or  misdemeanor.  He  was 


192 


RECONSTRUCTION 


low-born  and  low-bred,  violent  in  temper,  obstinate, 
coarse,  vindictive,  and  lacking  in  the  sense  of  pro- 
priety, but  he  was  not  behind  any  of  his  accusers  in 
patriotism  and  loyalty  to  the  country,  and  in  his  will- 
ingness to  sacrifice  every  personal  advantage  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  Union  and  the  preservation  of  the 
Government.  In  fact,  most  of  them  were  pygmies  in 
these  qualities  beside  him.  It  is  true  that  he  differed 
with  them  somewhat  in  his  conception  of  what  meas- 
ures were  for  the  welfare  of  the  country  and  what  not, 
but  the  sequel  has  shown  that  he  was  nearer  right  than 
they  in  this  respect. 

So  soon  as  the  Court  of  Impeachment  pronounced  its 
acquittal  of  the  President,  Mr.  Stanton  addressed  to  the 
The  abdica-  President  a letter  announcing  his  relinquish- 
ton  °f  Stan"  ment  Die  War  Department,  and  his  de- 
livery of  the  papers  and  properties  thereof  to 
General  Townsend,  subject  to  the  President’s  directions. 

The  Senate  now  confirmed  the  nomination  of  General 
Schofield’s  Schofield  to  be  Secretary  of  War.  The  Gen- 
aT^cretary  era^  once  accepted  the  appointment  and 
hfs acceptance  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  office,  and 
of  the  office,  administered  these  duties  to  the  end  of  his 
term,  according  to  his  own  testimony,  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  the  President. 

Some  of  Stanton’s  friends  have  tried  to  make  out 
that  but  for  Stanton’s  resistance  and  the  impeachment, 
and  its  nearness  to  success,  Johnson  would  have  ap- 
pointed a tool  of  his  own  to  the  War  Office  and  have 
rode  rough-shod  over  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  that  he 
was  frightened  out  of  this  purpose,  and  frightened  into 
an  implied  agreement  with  certain  Senators  and  Gen- 
eral Schofield  that  the  Reconstruction  laws  should  be 
executed  as  Stanton  understood  them,  and  not  as  the 
President  understood  them.  There  is  little  ground  for 


THE  ATTEMPT  TO  REMOVE  THE  PRESIDENT  193 

any  snch  assumptions.  There  is  certainly  none  in  the 
character  of  the  men  whom  the  President  asked  to 
take  the  War  Office,  Grant,  Sherman  and  Ewing ; and 
it  must  be  remembered  that  through  Mr.  Stanbery,  in 
the  case  of  Mississippi  vs.  Johnson,  he  had  long  before 
announced  to  the  Southerners  that  his  opposition  to  the 
Reconstruction  Acts  ceased  with  his  unsuccessful  veto  of 
them,  and  that  he  should  execute  them  both  in  letter 
and  in  spirit.  It  was  Republican  Senators  who  sug- 
gested to  the  President’s  counsel  the  nomination  of 
General  Schofield,  a man  entirely  friendly  with  the 
President  and  acceptable  to  him.  Neither  the  Presi- 
dent nor  the  President’s  counsel  approached  any  Sena- 
tor with  the  proposition.  It  was  the  Republican  Sena- 
tors who  were  frightened,  rather  than  the  President  or 
his  counsel.  These  Senators  knew  that  the  law  and  the 
evidence  were  with  the  President,  and  that  the  Repub- 
lican party  was  on  trial,  as  much  so  as  the  President ; 
and  they  knew  that,  if  the  Republican  Senate  should, 
upon  the  showing  made  by  the  President’s  counsel  of 
the  law  and  the  evidence  in  the  case,  convict  the  Presi- 
dent and  remove  him  from  office,  the  party  would  stand 
arraigned  before  the  people  for  having  destroyed  the 
constitutional  balance  between  the  executive  and  the 
legislature  in  order  to  gain  a partisan  end.  They  recog- 
nized the  dilemma  into  which  the  hot-headed  leaders  of 
the  party  in  the  House  of  Representatives  had,  by  their 
hasty  impeachment  procedure,  brought  the  party,  and 
they  were  very  much  relieved  to  secure  any  understand- 
ing with  the  President’s  counsel  whereby  the  chance  of 
averting  the  catastrophe  to  the  party,  as  well  as  to  the 
country,  might  be  increased.  The  suspicion  that  Mr. 
Stanton  was  playing  his  part  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing the  Republican  nomination  for  the  presidency  in 
1868,  rather  than  from  any  motives  of  disinterested 


194 


RECONSTRUCTION 


patriotism,  has  about  as  little  foundation  as  has  the  theory 
of  salutary  terror,  produced  by  the  impeachment,  con- 
trolling the  President’s  subsequent  actions  against  his 
own  preconceived  plans  and  purposes.  Both  of  these 
speculations  are  no  valid  parts  of  the  history  of  this  great 
transaction.  What  we  have  as  certain  facts  are  that 
the  judgment  was  an  acquittal,  that  it  was  rendered  in 
accordance  with  law  and  evidence,  and  that  it  preserved 
the  constitutional  balance  between  the  executive  and 
the  legislature  in  the  governmental  system  of  the  coun- 
try ; and  that  for  this  the  judgment  of  history  coincides 
with  the  judgment  of  the  court. 


CHAPTER  X 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 

The  McCardle  Case — The  Congressional  Acts  Admitting  the  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives  elect  from  the  Reconstructed  “ States  ” 
to  Seats  in  Congress — The  Veto  of  these  Bills  by  the  Presi- 
dent— The  Vetoes  Overridden — Ratification  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  and  the  President’s  Proclamations  Declaring  Re- 
construction Completed  — Seward’s  Proclamation  Declaring 
the  Ratification  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  the  Re- 
quired Number  of  “States” — The  Questions  Suggested  by 
Mr.  Seward’s  First  Proclamation — The  Concurrent  Resolution 
of  Congress  upon  these  Questions — The  Correct  Procedure — 
The  National  Conventions  of  1868 — Platform  and  Nominees  of 
the  Republican  Party — Democratic  Platform  and  Nominees — 
The  Election  and  the  Electoral  Vote — The  Conduct  of  the 
President  during  the  Campaign — Congress  and  the  President 
— The  President’s  Last  Annual  Message — The  President’s 
Amnesty  Proclamation  of  December  25th,  1868 — The  Presi- 
dent’s Veto  of  the  Bill  in  Regard  to  the  Colored  Schools  in  the 
District  of  Columbia — The  Fifteenth  Amendment — Criticism 
of  the  Republican  View — Johnson’s  Retirement  from  the  Presi- 
dency— The  President  and  the  Republican  Party. 

During  the  period  of  the  impeachment  trial,  a case 
was  in  progress  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  which  in  its  final  settlement  The  McCar. 
was  destined  to  deprive  the  President  of  any  dle  case- 
hope  that  a judicial  decision  in  regard  to  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  could  ever  be  at- 
tained. We  have  seen  that  in  the  cases  of  Mississippi 
vs.  Johnson  and  of  Georgia  vs.  Stanton  the  Presi- 
dent had  resisted  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  when 

195 


196 


RECONSTRUCTION 


aimed  directly  at  the  Executive  and  his  immediate 
agents.  This  was  his  duty,  and  he  performed  it  sin- 
cerely and  successfully.  But  it  is  not  to  be  inferred 
from  this  that  he  would  not  have  welcomed  a judicial 
decision  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
pronouncing  these  Acts  null  and  void,  if  it  could  have 
been  reached  through  the  forms  of  a proper  case,  one 
not  involving  the  executive  authority  at  all. 

Such  a case  had  appeared  in  this  Court  in  the  winter 
term  of  1867-68,  and  the  argument  as  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Court,  and  the  decision  of  this  point  in  the 
affirmative,  had  both  been  made  before  the  impeach- 
ment trial  began.  One  William  II.  McCardle,  arrested 
and  held  by  the  military  authorities  in  Mississippi  for  trial 
before  a military  commission  on  charge  of  having  pub- 
lished in  a newspaper,  of  which  he  was  editor,  libellous 
and  incendiary  articles,  petitioned  the  Circuit  Court 
of  the  United  States  for  a writ  of  Habeas  Corpus.  The 
writ  was  issued,  and  return  was  made  by  the  military 
commander.  General  A.  C.  Gillem,  admitting  the  ar- 
rest and  detention  of  McCardle,  but  contending  that 
these  acts  were  lawful.  The  Circuit  Court,  on  the  25th 
of  November,  1867,  remanded  McCardle,  who  had  been 
held  in  custody  between  the  time  of  the  return  to  the 
writ  and  this  date  by  the  United  States  marshal,  to  the 
custody  of  General  Gillem.  McCardle  then  appealed 
from  this  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  to  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States.  Upon  a motion  to 
dismiss  the  appeal,  made  by  the  counsel  of  the  military 
authorities,  this  Court  decided  that  under  the  statute  of 
February  5th,  1867,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  could  hear  the  appeal,  and  denied  the  motion  to 
dismiss  it. 

The  question  was  now  before  the  Supreme  Court 
upon  its  merits,  and  it  involved  the  constitutionality 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


197 


of  the  Reconstruction  Acts.  It  was  argued  very  ably, 
and  the  part  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  putting  the 
districts  of  the  South  under  martial  law  two  years 
after  the  Civil  War  had  ended,  and  when  the  civil  au- 
thority of  the  United  States  was  everywhere  recognized 
and  enforced,  was  pretty  clearly  shown  to  have  been  a 
very  serious  stretching  of  its  powers  by  Congress,  if 
not  a distinct  usurpation.  The  Republicans  in  Con- 
gress were  greatly  frightened,  and  while  the  case  was 
under  advisement  in  the  Court,  they  hastened  to  repeal 
the  Act  of  February  5th,  1867,  and  to  make  the  repeal 
apply  to  appeals  already  taken  under  that  Act,  as  well 
as  to  such  as  might  be  attempted  in  the  future.  The 
repealing  bill  was  vetoed  by  the  President  on  the  25th 
of  March,  but  it  was  immediately  repassed  by  the  ma- 
jority necessary  to  override  the  veto,  repassed  without 
the  slightest  regard  to  the  President’s  very  sound  and 
convincing  objections.  This  Act  of  the  27th  of  March 
was  intended  to  prevent  any  decision  upon  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  did  do  so 
most  effectively,  but  it  was  an  abominable  subterfuge 
on  the  part  of  Congress  and  a shameful  abuse  of  its 
powers. 

As  will  be  remembered,  seven  of  the  ten  Southern 
communities,  viz..  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  Florida,  Louisiana,  and  Arkansas, 
had  already  before  the  close  of  the  impeachment  trial 
ratified  the  “ State”  constitutions  framed  for  them  by 
the  “ carpet-bag,  scalawag,  negro  conventions  ” held 
in  each  for  them,  had  elected  “ State  ” officers  and  legis- 
lators, and  the  legislature  of  one  of  them,  Arkansas,  had 
ratified  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  the  legislature  of 
each  of  them  was  required  to  do  before  it  could  be  ad- 
mitted to  representation  in  Congress. 


198 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Congress  now  looked  upon  the  work  of  its  hands  and 
pronounced  it  good,  and  proceeded  to  pass  the  acts,  neces- 
The  con-  sary  in  its  conceit,  to  admit  these  communi- 
IVtV'aSSS!  ties  to  representation  in  the  legislative  houses 
Ung  the  sen-  0f  the  Nation.  First  came  the  Act  in  reference 

ators  and  Rep- 

resentatives  to  Arkansas,  of  the  22d  of  June,  1868,  since, 

elect  from  the  . , ’ 

reconstructed  as  has  been  just  said,  the  new  legislature  of 
seats  in  Con-  Arkansas  had  already  ratified  the  proposed 
Fourteenth  Amendment.  It  provided  “ that 
the  State  of  Arkansas  is  entitled  and  admitted  to  repre- 
sentation in  Congress,  as  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union, 
on  the  following  fundamental  condition  : That  the  con- 
stitution of  Arkansas  shall  never  be  so  amended  or 
changed  as  to  deprive  any  citizen,  or  class  of  citizens,  of 
the  United  States  of  the  right  to  vote  who  are  entitled 
to  vote  by  the  constitution  herein  recognized,  except 
as  a punishment  for  such  crimes  as  are  now  felonies 
at  common  law,  whereof  they  shall  have  been  duly  con- 
victed under  laws  equally  applicable  to  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  said  State  : Provided  that  any  alteration  of 
said  constitution  prospective  in  its  effect  may  be 
made  in  regard  to  the  time  and  place  of  residence  of 
voters.” 

Three  days  later,  that  is  on  the  25th,  Congress  pro 
vided  in  a single  act  for  the  admission  of  the  Senators 
and  Representatives  from  the  other  six  reconstructed 
“ States  ” to  the  national  legislature  in  the  following 
language  : “ Be  it  enacted , &c.,  That  each  of  the  States 
of  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Louisiana,  Georgia, 
Alabama,  and  Florida,  shall  be  entitled  and  admitted  to 
representation  in  Congress  as  a State  of  the  Union  when 
the  legislature  of  such  State  shall  have  duly  ratified 
the  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
proposed  by  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  and  known  as 
Article  XIV.,  upon  the  following  fundamental  condi- 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


199 


tions  : That  the  constitution  of  neither  of  said  States 
shall  ever  be  so  amended  or  changed  as  to  deprive  any 
citizen,  or  class  of  citizens,  of  the  United  States  of  the 
right  to  vote  in  said  State  who  are  entitled  to  vote  by 
the  constitution  thereof,  herein  recognized,  except  as 
a punishment  for  such  crimes  as  are  now  felonies  at 
common  law,  whereof  they  shall  have  been  duly  con- 
victed under  laws  equally  applicable  to  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  said  State  : Provided,  that  any  alteration  of 
said  constitutions  may  be  made  with  regard  to  the  time 
and  place  of  residence  of  voters.”  It  was  also  further 
provided  that  the  legislature  of  Georgia  should,  by 
solemn  public  act,  declare  its  assent  to  the  fundamental 
condition  that  the  article  of  the  new  constitution  of 
Georgia  prohibiting  the  courts  within  the  “ State”  from 
entertaining  any  suit  against  any  resident  of  the  “ State  ” 
for  any  debt  existing  prior  to  June  1st,  1865,  and  pro- 
hibiting the  judicial  and  ministerial  officers  of  the 
“ State  ” from  executing  any  process  in  reference  to  such 
debts,  should  be  considered  and  treated  as  null  and  void. 

The  President  had  placed  his  veto  on  both  of  these 
bills.  The  veto  of  the  Arkansas  bill  bears  the  date  of  J une 
20th,  and  that  of  the  other  bill  bears  the  date  . , 

of  June  25th.  There  are  parts  of  the  Presi-  these  bills  by 

tli@  President. 

dent’s  argument  which  are  entirely  convinc- 
ing to  any  candid  mind  at  the  present  day.  He  pointed 
out  that  the  fundamental  condition  imposed  by  Congress, 
in  all  these  cases,  upon  the  admission  of  Senators  and 
Representatives  to  Congress,  viz.,  that  no  change  should 
ever  be  made  in  the  suffrage  qualifications  provided  in 
these  “ State  ” constitutions  whereby  any  citizen  or 
class  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  having  the  right 
to  vote  under  these  constitutions  should  be  deprived  of 
such  right,  was  an  assumption  of  power  by  Congress  to 
regulate  a subject,  within  the  “ States,”  which  by  the 


200 


RECONSTRUCTION 


existing  Constitution  of  the  United  States  belonged 
exclusively  to  the  “States,”  to  each  “State”  for  it- 
self. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  President  was  en- 
tirely correct  in  this  contention.  The  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment was  as  yet  no  part  of  the  Constitution.  It  had  not 
even  been  proposed  by  Congress  to  the  “ States.”  It  is 
very  questionable  whether  a majority  in  Congress  could 
have  been  found,  at  that  time,  in  favor  of  making  such 
a proposition,  much  less  the  required  extraordinary  ma- 
jority of  two-thirds.  And  until  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment had  been  ratified  as  a part  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  Congress  had  no  power  to  exact  such 
a concession,  or  anything  like  it,  from  any  “State”  as 
the  price  of  the  admission  of  representatives  from  it  to 
the  Houses  of  the  National  Legislature.  And  even 
since  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  has  become  a part  of 
the  Constitution,  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
cannot  prohibit  such  changes  in  a “ State  ” consti- 
tution, unless  the  deprivation  of  suffrage  is  made  on 
account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servi- 
tude. 

The  President  also  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  no 
way  was  provided  in  the  bills  whereby  the  “ States  ” 
should  signify  their  acceptance  of  this  “ fundamental 
condition  ” of  admission  to  representation  in  Congress, 
and  that  no  penalty  was  prescribed  for  a violation  of  the 
condition.  Did  Congress  mean  that,  in  case  of  any 
violation  of  its  “ fundamental  condition,”  it  would 
throw  the  “ State  ” back  under  martial  law,  and  proceed 
to  reconstruct  anew  ? That  was  a question  which  might 
well  be  asked  in  view  of  what  Congress  had  already  done  ; 
and  it  was  a question  which  was  not  calculated  to  allay 
uneasiness  in  the  minds  of  the  people  in  the  Southern 
communities. 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


201 


Finally,  in  the  veto  of  the  Arkansas  bill,  the  Presi- 
dent expressed  his  very  serious  doubts  whether  the  new 
“ State  ” constitution  had  been  ratified  by  the  electorate 
created  by  the  Acts  of  Congress  for  that  purpose,  since 
a section  in  that  constitution  prescribed  that  no  person 
would  be  allowed  to  vote  upon  the  ratification  of  the 
constitution  who  had  not  previously  taken  an  oath  to 
the  effect  “ that  he  accepted  the  doctrine  of  the  civil 
and  political  equality  of  all  men,  and  agreed  not  to  at- 
tempt to  deprive  any  person  or  persons,  on  account  of 
race,  color,  or  previous  condition,  of  any  political  or 
civil  right,  privilege  or  immunity  enjoyed  by  any  other 
class  of  men,”  thus  adding  a new  qualification  for  reg- 
istration and  voting  to  those  prescribed  in  the  Recon- 
struction Acts  of  Congress.  There  is  no  question  that 
the  President  was  right  about  this,  too.  And  there  is  no 
question  that  this  new  qualification  was  entirely  null 
and  void,  in  so  far  as  it  applied  to  voting  upon,  and  reg- 
istering to  vote  upon,  the  ratification  of  the  constitution 
itself,  unless  we  ascribe  constituent  power  to  the  con- 
vention which  framed  the  constitution,  instead  of  the 
power  of  initiation  only.  We  know  that  no  constitu- 
tional convention  has,  or  then  had,  any  such  powers  in 
our  system.  It  was  nothing  more  or  less  than  a pal- 
pable usurpation  of  constituent  power  when  the  conven- 
tion in  Arkansas  presumed  to  add  this  qualification  to 
those  prescribed  by  Congress  for  voting  upon  the  ratifi- 
cation of  the  constitution  itself.  Of  course  it  would 
have  been  lawful  and  regular  for  the  “ State  ” consti- 
tution to  make  this  additional  requirement  for  voting 
in  all  future  elections,  after  the  constitution  prescrib- 
ing it  should  have  been  adopted  by  the  electorate 
created  by  the  Congressional  Acts,  although  the  re- 
quirement itself  would  have  been  unreasonable  and 
oppressive.  But  for  the  convention,  a mere  proposing 


202 


RECONSTRUCTION 


body,  to  ordain  this  new  qualification  for  voting  on  the 
question  of  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  itself  was 
a political  outrage  of  the  first  order. 

Congress  was  not,  however,  in  a state  of  mind  to 
listen  to  any  suggestions  from  the  President,  no  matter 
The  vetoes  h°w  correct  and  important  they  might  be. 
overridden.  Both  Houses  promptly,  almost  mockingly, 
passed  the  two  bills  over  the  President’s  vetoes. 

Such  of  the  legislatures  created  under  the  new  “ State  ” 
constitutions  as  were  not  already  in  session  were  quick- 
Ratifieation  ty  summoned  to  assemble,  and  by  July  21st 
teen  th  a mend'  all  of  them  had  ratified  the  proposed  Four- 
Pr’esid'ent’s  tee  nth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of 
leciaring^Re-  the  United  States,  and  the  legislature  of 
co». true.  Georgia  had  also  pledged  by  solemn  act  that 
pieted.  the  repudiation  article  of  the  new  constitu- 

tion should  never  be  enforced.  By  July  27th  the  Presi- 
dent had  issued  his  several  proclamations,  as  required  by 
the  Act  of  June  25th,  announcing  the  ratification  of  the 
proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  these  legislatures, 
and  consequently  the  admission  of  these  “States”  to 
representation  in  Congress ; and  so  far  as  the  seven 
“States”  of  Arkansas,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  Florida  and  Louisiana  were  concerned 
the  work  of  reconstruction  was  now  completed.  Vir- 
ginia, Mississippi  and  Texas  still  remained  under  mar- 
tial law. 

On  the  28th  day  of  July,  Mr.  Seward,  the  Secretary 

Seward’s  of  State,  issued  his  proclamation,  declaring 

Son* dedaring  the  ratification  of  the  proposed  Fourteenth 

the  ratification  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
of  the  Four- 

teenthAmend-  United  States  by  the  legislatures  of  thirty 
ment  by  the  y ° ~ 

required  States  of  the  Union,  and  its  consequent  valid- 
“ states.”  ity  as  a part  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


203 


Eight  days  before  this  proclamation,  that  is  on  the 
20th,  Mr.  Seward  had  issued  a proclamation  declaring 
that  the  legislatures  of  twenty-three  States,  The  queg. 
viz.,  of  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire,  Ten-  ‘i^n8bsus^Brt 
nessee.  New  Jersey,  Oregon,  Vermont,  New  Seward’s  first 
York,  Ohio,  Illinois,  West  Virginia,  Kan-  pr0C,amatl0u- 
sas,  Maine,  Nevada,  Missouri,  Indiana,  Minnesota, 
Rhode  Island,  Wisconsin,  Pennsylvania,  Michigan,  Mas- 
sachusetts, Nebraska  and  Iowa,  had  ratified  the  proposed 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  that  six  “ newly-consti- 
tuted and  newly-established  bodies  avowing  themselves 
to  be,  and  acting  as,  the  legislatures,  respectively,  of 
the  States  of  Arkansas,  Florida,  North  Carolina,  Louisi- 
ana, South  Carolina,  and  Alabama”  had  also  ratified  it  ; 
that  the  legislatures  of  Ohio  and  New  Jersey  had  subse- 
quently passed  resolutions  withdrawing  their  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Amendment ; and  that,  if  these  latter  reso- 
lutions of  the  legislatures  of  Ohio  and  New  Jersey  should 
be  disregarded,  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment 
had  been  adopted  by  the  legislatures  of  twenty-nine  of 
the  thirty-seven  “States”  of  the  Union  and  had  thus 
become  a valid  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

Besides  the  question  expressed  in  this  Proclamation, 
Mr.  Seward  indicates  by  his  language  a further  question, 
viz.,  whether  the  six  “ newly-constituted  and  newly- 
established  bodies,  avowing  themselves  to  be,  and  acting 
as,  the  legislatures,  respectively,  of  the  States  of  Arkan- 
sas, Florida,  North  Carolina,  Louisiana,  South  Carolina, 
and  Alabama  ” were  genuine  “ State  ” legislatures.  They 
were  the  legislatures  established  under  the  Reconstruc- 
tion Acts  of  Congress,  but  as  Congress  had  refused  to  rec- 
ognize the  “ States  ” for  whom  these  bodies  acted  as  en- 
titled to  representation  in  Congress,  that  is  as  “ States  ” 
having  the  rights  of  “States”  of  the  Union,  until 


204 


RECONSTRUCTION 


after  these  bodies  had  ratified  the  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
it  was  no  wonder  that  so  good  a constitutional  lawyer 
and  so  logical  a thinker  as  Mr.  Seward  had  his  doubts 
as  to  whether  these  bodies  were  genuine  “ State  ” legis- 
latures. 

In  order  to  quiet  these  doubts,  if  possible,  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress  passed  on  the  following  day,  July 
The  concur-  21st,  the  following  concurrent  resolution : 
tioifoPcon-  “Whereas  the  legislatures  of  the  States  of 
que°s”  Connecticut,  Tennessee,  New  Jersey,  Ore- 
tious.  gon,  Vermont,  West  Virginia,  Kansas,  Mis- 

souri, Indiana,  Ohio,  Illinois,  Minnesota,  New  York, 
Wisconsin,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  Michigan,  Ne- 
vada, New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Nebraska,  Maine, 
Iowa,  Arkansas,  Florida,  North  Carolina,  Alabama, 
South  Carolina  and  Louisiana,  being  three-fourths  and 
more  of  the  several  States  of  the  Union,  have  ratified 
the  Fourteenth  Article  of  Amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  duly  proposed  by  two- thirds 
of  each  House  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  ; there- 
fore, Resolved  by  the  Senate  (the  House  of  Represent- 
atives concurring).  That  said  Fourteenth  Article  is 
hereby  declared  to  be  a part  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  it  shall  be  duly  promulgated  as  such 
by  the  Secretary  of  State.”  Upon  the  basis  of  this  reso- 
lution, which  decided,  in  so  far  as  Congress  can  decide, 
that  the  consent  of  the  legislature  of  a “State”  to  a 
proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  cannot  be  withdrawn  when  once  given,  and  that 
the  “ newly-constituted  and  newly-established  bodies, 
avowing  themselves  to  be,  and  acting  as,  the  legislat- 
ures, respectively,  of  the  States  of  Arkansas,  Florida, 
North  Carolina,  Louisiana,  South  Carolina,  and  Ala- 
bama” were  genuine  “State”  legislatures  qualified  to 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


205 


vote  upon  the  ratification  of  a proposed  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Seward  is- 
sued his  proclamation  of  the  28th  of  July,  above  recited. 
As  the  Georgia  Legislature  ratified  the  proposed  amend- 
ment on  the  21st  inst.  and  also  gave  its  pledge  not  to 
allow  the  repudiation  article  in  its  constitution  to  be 
enforced,  Mr.  Seward  included  Georgia  in  this  last 
proclamation. 

It  will  be  seen  that  both  Mr.  Seward  and  Congress 
counted  all  of  the  Southern  communities  which  had 
ever  been  “ States  ” as  being  “ States,”  making  the 
whole  number  of  “ States  ” thirty-seven,  and  the  number 
necessary  for  ratification  of  the  amendment  twenty- 
eight.  Upon  this  basis  of  calculation  two  more  than 
the  necessary  number  had  ratified  at  the  date  of  Mr. 
Seward's  final  proclamation.  T,t  will  also  be  seen  that 
both  Mr.  Seward  and  Congress,  that  is  that  both  the 
legislative  and  executive  departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment, ignored  the  attempt  of  Ohio  and  New  Jersey  to 
withdraw  their  consent  to  the  amendment,  and  fixed  the 
precedent  in  the  constitutional  practice  of  the  United 
States  that  a “State”  legislature  cannot  reconsider  its 
ratification  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  at  any  time.  This  means,  when  scientifi- 
cally appreciated,  that  the  ratification  of  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  an  agree- 
ment between  the  “ States,”  and  therefore  becomes  valid 
as  to  each  only  after  three-fourths  of  the  “ States,”  the 
constitutional  number  necessary  to  make  the  proposed 
amendment  a valid  part  of  the  Constitution,  shall  have 
ratified  it,  but  that  ratification  by  a “ State  ” legislature, 
and  a fortiori  by  a convention  of  the  people  within  a 
“ State,”  is  only  an  indirect  vote  of  a part  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States  upon  a question  submitted  to  the  suf- 
frages of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States.  When, 


206 


RECONSTRUCTION 


therefore,  this  affirmative  vote  has  been  once  officially 
announced  by  the  proper  authorities  within  the  “ State  ” 
to  the  proper  authorities  of  the  United  States  there  is 
no  further  control  over  it  by  the  authorities  within  the 
“ State.” 

If,  however,  the  votes  of  Ohio  and  New  Jersey  had  not 
been  counted  in  the  affirmative,  there  was  still  a three- 
The  correct  fourths  majority  of  thirty-seven  “ States  ” 
procedure.  jn  favor  0f  ratification.  And  if  the  ten 
Southern  communities  had  been  left  out  of  the  compu- 
tation altogether,  which  would  have  made  the  Union  to 
consist,  so  far  as  that  part  of  it  erected  into  “ States  ” was 
concerned,  of  twenty-seven  “ States,”  there  would  still 
have  been  more  than  a three-fourths  majority  in  favor  of 
ratification,  with  or  without  Ohio  and  New  Jersey.  The 
correct  procedure,  from  a scientific  point  of  view,  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  to  have  computed  the  necessary 
majority  upon  the  basis  of  twenty-seven  “ States,”  to 
have  included  Ohio  and  New  Jersey  among  the  “ States  ” 
whose  legislatures  voted  for  ratification,  and  then  to  have 
admitted  the  ten  Southern  communities  as  “States” 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  as  an  already  established  part  of 
it,  concerning  which  they  had  no  more  to  say  than  they 
had  in  regard  to  any  other  part  of  the  Constitution. 
But,  however  that  may  be,  no  objection  can  be  made  to 
the  validity  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  on  the  ground 
of  the  majority  by  which  it  was  ratified.  In  whatever 
way  we  may  compute  the  whole  number  of  “ States  ” and 
the  majority  voting  in  the  affirmative,  the  Amendment 
was  lawfully  ratified. 

During  these  movements  in  execution  of  the  Recon- 
struction Acts,  the  national  party  conventions  for  the 
nomination  of  candidates  for  the  presidency  and  for 
the  formation  of  platforms  were  held.  That  of  the 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


207 


Republican  party  assembled  first,  on  the  twenty-first 
day  of  May  in  Chicago,  at  the  moment  when  its  radical 
elements  were  filled  with  rage  and  chagrin 
at  the  failure  of  the  impeachment  of  the  conventions  of 
President.  1868' 

It  made  General  Joseph  R.  Hawley,  of  Connecticut, 
its  presiding  officer  ; adopted  a platform,  a large  part  of 
which  was  devoted  to  denunciation  of  the  platform 
President,  to  the  promise  of  bountiful  pen-  oflheRepub- 
sions,  and  to  a twist  of  the  British  lion’s  tail  lican  Party- 
on  the  subject  of  expatriation ; the  main  principles  of 
which,  however,  were  good  faith  in  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt  with  sound  money,  and  equal  suffrage  by 
Congressional  law  in  the  Southern  communities ; and 
nominated  Grant  and  Colfax  for  the  presidency  and  the 
vice-presidency. 

In  pronouncing  for  the  guaranty  of  negro  suffrage  at 
the  South  by  Congressional  law,  the  platform  attempted 
to  steer  clear  of  the  prejudices  against  negro  suffrage  at 
the  North  by  a sort  of  proviso,  which  read,  “ While  the 
question  of  suffrage  in  all  the  loyal  States  properly  be- 
longs to  the  people  of  those  States.”  This  was  certainly 
inconsistent,  not  to  say  hypocritical.  Negro  suffrage 
at  the  North  would  have  been  a comparatively  harm- 
less thing  on  account  of  the  fewness  of  the  negroes 
as  compared  with  the  whites  in  that  section,  and  on 
account  of  the  superior  average  intelligence  of  the 
negroes  of  the  North  when  compared  with  that  of  those 
of  the  South.  There  was  no  sound  principle  in  this 
article  of  the  platform.  It  was  a mean,  shuffling  bit  of 
partisan  politics.  The  party  itself  felt  it  to  be  so  in  the 
course  of  the  campaign,  and  came  out  finally  for  the  set- 
tlement of  the  whole  question  of  negro  suffrage  upon  the 
same  basis  for  the  whole  country  and  by  means  of  a con- 
stitutional amendment. 


208 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  nominees  immediately  accepted  their  nominations 
in  characteristic  letters,  that  of  General  Grant  being 
short,  crisp,  modest  and  ending  with  the  now  famous 
sentence  : “Let  ns  have  peace,”  and  that  of  Colfax  be- 
ing more  lengthy  and  wordy  and  containing  a rhetorical 
defence  of  some  of  the  more  questionable  parts  of  the 
platform. 

The  Democratic  convention  assembled  in  New  York 
on  the  4th  day  of  July.  It  was  confronted  at  the  start 
Democratic  with  the  Greenback  heresy,  and  the  can- 
platform  and  didacy  of  the  Greenback  champion  for  the 

nomiDees.  . ^ 

presidency,  Mr.  George  H.  Pendleton  of 
Ohio.  This  heresy  was  in  a sentence  the  doctrine  that  all 
the  public  debt  of  the  United  States  not  made  expressly 
payable  in  coin  should  be  paid  in  United  States  paper, 
which  Congress  might  order  to  be  stamped,  issued,  and 
made  legal  tender,  to  any  amount  it  might  please.  The 
shibboleth  was,  “ the  same  currency  for  the  bond- 
holder and  the  plough-holder.”  It  had  taken  firm  hold 
in  Ohio,  and  was  rapidly  spreading  through  the  valley 
of  the  Mississippi.  The  Eastern  Democrats,  however, 
looked  upon  it  with  disfavor,  and  were  determined  to 
defeat  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Pendleton.  They  were 
obliged,  however,  to  accept  the  platform,  in  so  far  as  it 
related  to  this  subject,  as  dictated  by  their  Western 
compatriots.  The  third  plank  in  the  platform  read, 
“ . . . and  where  the  obligations  of  the  Government 

do  not  expressly  state  upon  their  face,  or  the  law 
under  which  they  were  issued  does  not  provide,  that 
they  shall  be  paid  in  coin,  they  ought  in  right  and  in 
justice  to  be  paid  in  the  lawful  money  of  the  United 
States.”  The  fifth  plank  also  read,  “one  currency  for 
the  Government  and  the  people,  the  laborer  and  the 
officeholder,  the  pensioner  and  the  soldier,  the  pro- 
ducer and  the  bondholder.”  It  is  true  that  the  plat- 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED  209 

form  did  not  expressly  pronounce  in  favor  of  an 
unlimited  issue  of  paper  money  with  which  to  pay 
the  bonds,  but  it  was  generally  understood  that  this 
was  what  was  meant.  The  questions  then  of  sound 
money  and  of  the  faithful  discharge  of  the  public  obli- 
gations were  thus  put  in  issue.  The  Democrats  also 
met  squarely  the  Republican  doctrine  of  Reconstruc- 
tion. They  demanded  the  “ immediate  restoration  of  all 
the  States  to  their  rights  in  the  Union  under  the  Con- 
stitution, and  of  civil  government  to  the  American 
people,”  with  “ amnesty  for  all  past  political  offences, 
and  the  regulation  of  the  election  franchise  in  the 
States  by  their  citizens.”  And  they  denounced  the 
Radical  party,  as  they  termed  the  Republicans,  “ for  its 
disregard  of  right,  and  the  unparalleled  oppression  and 
tyranny  which  have  marked  its  career,”  declared  the 
Reconstruction  Acts  to  be  unconstitutional,  revolution- 
ary and  void,  and  lauded  President  Johnson  for  his  un- 
flinching resistance  to  “ the  aggressions  of  Congress 
upon  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  States  and  the 
people.” 

There  is  no  question  that  the  platform  of  the  Demo- 
crats, with  its  paper  money  doctrine,  and  its  hostility 
to  Reconstruction  and  universal  suffrage,  was  weakness  of 
a shaky  foundation  for  any  party  to  attempt  the  Platform- 
to  stand  upon  at  that  juncture.  Not  much  conscience  and 
not  much  sentiment  could  be  aroused  with  such  tenets. 
Conscience  and  sentiment  were  much  more  amenable  to 
the  appeals  of  the  Republican  platform  upon  these  points. 
Moreover,  the  tremendous  popularity  of  the  Republi- 
can candidates  had  to  be  reckoned  with.  Where  could 
the  Democrats  find  a candidate  who  would  both  match 
Grant  in  the  popular  affection  and  overbalance  also  the 
weakness  of  the  platform  ? The  New  Yorkers  in  the 
convention,  led  by  Seymour,  Tilden,  Schell  and  Kernan, 


210 


RECONSTRUCTION 


had  their  man  for  this  emergency,  but  they  dared  not 
reveal  at  the  outset  their  plan.  They  were  resolved  to 
nominate  Chief  Justice  Chase.  They  thought  that 
Chase’s  well-known  devotion  to  the  principles  of  uni- 
versal suffrage  and  his  career  as  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury would  satisfy  the  Eastern  men  in  regard  to  the 
platform,  and  that  his  attachment  to  the  principles  of 
civil  government  versus  militarism  would,  in  some  de- 
gree at  least,  neutralize  the  popularity  of  the  military 
hero.  The  delegates  from  Ohio,  Mr.  Chase’s  own 
“ State,”  suspected  the  purpose  of  the  New  Yorkers,  and 
were  determined  to  foil  it.  If  they  could  not  get  Pen- 
dleton, they  were  determined  not  to  have  Chase.  After 
the  first  six  ballots  without  result,  Pendleton,  however, 
leading,  the  New  Yorkers  brought  forward  Hendricks 
of  Indiana,  in  order  to  break  down  Pendleton’s  vote. 
Having  succeeded  in  this  after  some  six  more  ballots, 
the  name  of  Chase  was  brought  before  the  convention 
by  a half  vote  from  California.  The  purpose  was  prob- 
ably to  feel  of  the  convention.  It  was  highly  success- 
ful. The  announcement  of  the  half  vote  was  received 
with  enthusiastic  applause.  Masking  themselves  be- 
hind Hancock,  who  was  at  that  juncture  in  the  lead, 
and  Hendricks,  the  New  Yorkers  now  prepared  to  pre- 
sent Chase ; but  the  Ohioans  were  too  quick  for  them. 
They  succeeded  in  withdrawing  Pendleton  and  present- 
ing Seymour  himself  as  their  candidate,  before  the  New 
Yorkers  knew  what  they  were  about.  Seymour,  who 
was  occupying  the  presidency  of  the  convention,  declared 
from  his  seat  that  he  could  not  accept,  but  the  Ohioans 
stuck  to  their  nomination,  and  the  New  Yorkers  had  to 
assent.  They  were  fairly  caught  in  their  own  net. 

Seymour  finally  yielded,  and  the  convention  addressed 
itself  to  the  nomination  of  its  candidate  for  the  vice-pres- 
idency. The  ex-Confederate  General  William  Preston  of 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


211 


Kentucky  presented  the  name  of  the  noted  Union  Gen- 
eral Francis  P.  Blair  of  Missouri  for  the  place.  The 
nomination  was  seconded  by  the  ex-Confeder-  The  nomi. 
ate  General  Wade  Hampton  of  South  Caro-  nees- 
lina,  and  was  made  by  acclamation.  While  General  Blair 
was  a noted  Union  soldier  of  high  ability  and  undoubted 
loyalty,  he  was  a fierce  enemy  of  the  Reconstruction 
Acts  of  Congress,  and  was  for  this  reason  very  popular 
with  the  ex-Confederates.  In  an  open  letter  to  Colonel 
J.  0.  Brodhead  of  St.  Louis,  written  five  days  before 
the  assembly  of  the  Democratic  convention,  he  not 
only  denounced  the  Reconstruction  Acts  as  unconstitu- 
tional, but  advanced  a method  for  getting  rid  of  them 
and  their  effects  in  case  a Democratic  President  should 
be  elected.  He  proposed  that  the  new  President  should 
“ declare  these  Acts  null  and  void,  compel  the  army  to 
undo  its  usurpations  at  the  South,  disperse  the  carpet 
bag  State  governments,  allow  the  white  people  to  re 
organize  their  own  governments,  and  elect  Senators  and 
Representatives.”  He  said,  further,  that  the  House  of 
Representatives  would  contain  a majority  of  Democrats 
from  the  North,  who  would  admit  the  members  elected 
to  that  body  from  the  South  to  seats,  and  that  the  House 
with  the  President  would  exert  such  a pressure  on  the 
Senate  as  to  cause  the  doors  of  that  body  to  be  opened  to 
the  members  from  the  Southern  “ States.”  When  Gen- 
eral Blair  wrote  this  letter  he  Avas  being  spoken  of  as  a 
candidate  for  the  presidency,  and  this  letter  was  taken  as 
the  declaration  of  what  he  would  do  if  elected  to  the  posi- 
tion of  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  nation.  After  his  nomina- 
tion for  the  vice-presidency,  in  his  speech  and  letter  of 
acceptance,  he  announced  the  chief  issue  in  the  contest 
to  be  the  relief  of  the  South  from  martial  law  and  negro 
domination.  The  ex-Confederates  represented  it  the 
same  way  at  the  South,  and  threw  themselves  into 


212 


RECONSTRUCTION 


the  campaign  with  great  enthusiasm  for  Seymour  and 
Blair. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  bland,  politic  and  persua- 
sive Seymour  pursued  a much  more  moderate  and  con- 
ciliatory course,  and  when  it  became  evident  that  General 
Blair’s  violent  expressions  and  revolutionary  purposes 
were  ruining  the  Democratic  prospects  at  the  North,  he 
went  into  the  campaign  personally,  and  by  his  diplo- 
matic manners  and  fine  oratory  succeeded  in  stemming 
the  tide  which,  running  against  the  Democrats  from  the 
moment  when  their  platform  was  proclaimed,  had  been 
driven  on  to  a flood  by  General  Blair’s  indiscretions,  to 
put  it  very  mildly,  in  speech  and  conduct.  But  while 
some  lost  ground  was  regained,  it  was  evident  that  the 
hopes  of  the  Democrats  had  been  blasted. 

The  electoral  votes  of  thirty-four  “ States  ” were 
counted,  Virginia,  Mississippi  and  Texas  being  still  re- 
garded by  Congress  as  unreconstructed.  Of 

Th0  election  ^ ^ t t 

and  the  elec-  these  thirty-four,  eight  cast  their  votes  for 
Seymour  and  Blair.  These  were  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Kentucky,  Oregon, 
Georgia  and  Louisiana.  The  rest  went  for  Grant  and 
Colfax.  The  electoral  vote  stood  eighty  for  Seymour 
and  Blair  and  two  hundred  and  fourteen  for  Grant  and 
Colfax.  The  popular  vote  stood  two  millions  seven 
hundred  and  three  thousand  two  hundred  and  forty-nine 
for  Seymour  and  Blair,  and  three  millions  and  twelve 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-three  for  Grant  and 
Colfax.  The  exclusion  of  Virginia,  Mississippi  and  Texas 
from  the  vote  and  the  inclusion  of  the  suffrages  of  the 
“ carpet-baggers  ” and  the  negroes,  under  the  protection 
of  the  military,  in  the  reconstructed  “ States,”  had  saved 
the  day  for  Grant  and  Colfax.  If  the  electorate  of  the 
South  had  been  as  in  1860,  or  probably  as  it  was  in  the 
years  of  the  Johnson  governments,  Seymour  and  Blair 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


213 


would  have  triumphed.  As  it  was,  but  for  the  Greenback 
plank  in  the  Democratic  platform  and  the  indiscretions 
of  General  Blair,  they  might  have  triumphed.  That  is 
to  say,  if  the  Reconstruction  policy  of  Congress  had  been 
the  sole  issue,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  Republicans 
would  have  lost  the  election,  even  with  the  most  popu- 
lar man  in  the  North  as  their  standard  bearer. 

Meanwhile  the  President  had  continued  to  ply  the 
Congress  with  his  vetoes  and  messages  and  to  address 
the  country  with  his  proclamations.  He  had  The  con 
thought  that  he  ought  to  be  vindicated  by  p^dcmtdur 
being  nominated  by  the  Democrats  for  the  mg  the  cam- 
presidency,  and  had  actually  received  sixty-  paign' 
five  votes  on  the  first  ballot.  His  failure  before  the 
convention  ought  to  have  taught  him  that  he  was  no 
longer  a factor  to  be  reckoned  with  in  the  domain  of 
politics,  and  that  his  proper  course  was  to  execute 
quietly  the  functions  of  his  office  to  the  end  of  his  term, 
and  then  retire  to  private  life.  But  he  seemed  to  think 
that  his  political  opinions  Avere  still  of  great  value,  and 
in  a very  few  days  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Demo- 
cratic convention  he  addressed  a message  to  Congress 
advising  a most  radical  change  in  the  structure  of  the 
government  by  means  of  constitutional  amendment.  He 
therein  recommended  that  Congress  should  propose  to  the 
“ States”  so  to  amend  the  Constitution  as  to  provide  for 
the  election  of  the  President  and  Vice-President  by  a 
direct  vote  of  the  people,  for  the  ineligibility  of  these 
officers  for  a second  term,  for  the  designation  of  the 
members  of  the  Cabinet  in  a certain  order,  beginning 
with  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  the  persons  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  the  President  in  case  of  a vacancy  in  the 
presidential  office  by  the  death,  resignation  or  removal 
of  both  the  President  and  the  Vice-President,  for  the 
election  of  the  Senators  by  the  direct  vote  of  the  people, 


214 


RECONSTRUCTION 


and  for  the  limitation  of  the  terms  of  the  United  States 
judges  to  a period  of  years.  There  was  sound  reason  for 
the  third  of  these  suggestions,  the  designation  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  Cabinet  officers  in  a certain  order  as 
the  successors  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  President, 
when  the  country  might  be  without  both  a President 
and  a Vice-President,  and  it  has  since  then  been  made 
law  under  the  form  of  a statute  of  Congress. 

But  the  Congress  was  not  then  in  a mood  to  hear 
anything  from  Mr.  Johnson.  Two  days  later,  July 
„ 20th,  the  President  vetoed  the  joint  reso- 

dentthe  PreBi"  ^u^on  Passe(l  by  the  two  Houses,  exclud- 
ing from  the  electoral  college  in  the  coming 
presidential  election  the  votes  of  “ States  ” lately  in  rebel- 
lion which  should  not  have  been  reorganized  under  the 
Reconstruction  Acts  of  Congress.  In  this  veto  he  went 
over  his  whole  argument  once  more  against  the  consti- 
tutionality of  these  Acts  and  in  favor  of  his  own  method 
of  Reconstruction.  But  the  Congress  treated  the  mes- 
sage with  contempt  and  promptly  repassed  the  resolution. 

On  the  9th  of  December  President  Johnson  sent  his 
last  annual  Message  to  Congress.  It  was  a grave,  dignified 

. and  statesmanlike  document  both  in  form  and 
The  Presi- 

dent’s  last  an-  content.  In  it  he  told  Congress  plainly  and 

nual  Message.  . ° 1 J 

respectfully  that  its  Reconstruction  policy 
had  arrayed  the  races  against  each  other  at  the  South, 
had  impaired,  if  not  destroyed,  the  kindly  relations 
that  had  previously  existed  between  them,  and  had 
given  mortal  offence  to  the  civilized  race  by  placing  the 
uncivilized  race  in  domination  over  it ; and  he  urged 
that  legislation  which  had  produced  such  baleful  conse- 
quences ought  to  be  abrogated.  He  also  told  Congress 
that  it  had  seriously  impaired  the  power  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  exact  the  necessary  accountability  of  the  public 
officers  by  its  Tenure-of-Office  Act,  and  had  embarrassed 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


215 


the  Executive  in  the  exercise  of  his  constitutional  mili- 
tary functions  by  the  Act  of  March  2d,  1867  ; and  he 
urged  the  repeal  of  both  of  these  measures.  He  also 
gave  a most  serious  and  startling  account  of  the  condition 
of  the  public  finances,  and  of  the  consumption  of  the 
wealth  of  the  Nation  by  the  bondholders,  officials  and 
pensioners.  He  pointed  out  that  the  public  debt,  which 
in  1860  was  64,000,000  dollars,  had  become  2,527,- 
129,552  dollars ; that  the  annual  expenditure,  which  was, 
in  1860,  63,000,000  dollars,  had  become  336,000,000 
dollars  and  more,  and  that  the  expenditure  per  capita, 
which  was  two  dollars  in  1860,  had  become  nearly  ten 
dollars.  And  he  suggested  the  ways  in  which  this 
threatening  condition  might  be  relieved,  viz.,  by  a re- 
funding of  the  bonds  at  a lower  interest,  by  a speedy 
resumption  of  specie  payment,  by  a reduction  of  the 
army  and  of  the  horde  of  Reconstruction  officials  in  the 
South,  and  by  a strict  accountability  of  the  revenue 
officials  to  their  superiors  and  of  these  latter  to  the 
President.  From  the  point  of  view  of  sound  political 
science,  good  public  policy  and  true  patriotism  all  of 
these  suggestions  were  at  least  worth  consideration,  but 
Congress  took  no  more  notice  of  them  than  it  did  of  the 
distant  murmurs  of  the  waters  of  the  Potomac. 

Only  once  again  did  the  Congress  break  over  its  ap- 
parent resolve  to  ignore  the  President,  and  that  was 
upon  the  occasion  of  his  issue  of  his  uni-  ThePresi- 
versal  and  unconditional  pardon  and  am-  fyntp8roCTama- 
nesty  to  all  persons  who  had  participated,  combed  mh 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  rebellion,  1868- 
with  the  restoration  of  all  their  rights,  privileges  and 
immunities  under  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  made 
in  pursuance  thereof.  The  date  of  this  document  was 
December  25th,  1868.  On  the  5th  of  January,  1869, 
the  Senate  called  him  to  account  for  this  by  a res- 


216 


RECONSTRUCTION 


olution  calling  upon  him  “ to  transmit  to  the  Senate  a 
copy  of  any  proclamation  of  amnesty  made  by  him  since 
the  last  adjournment  of  Congress,  and  also  to  commu- 
nicate to  the  Senate  by  what  authority  of  law  the  same 
was  made.”  The  President  replied  on  the  l'8th,  send- 
ing a copy  of  his  proclamation  of  December  25th,  1868, 
and  declaring  that  he  issued  it  by  authority  of  the  sec- 
ond section  of  Article  second  of  the  Constitution,  which 
vested  in  the  President  the  power  to  grant  reprieves 
and  pardons  for  offences  against  the  United  States,  ex- 
cept in  cases  of  impeachment,  and  in  accordance  with 
precedents  established  by  his  predecessors  in  office, 
Washington,  Adams,  Madison  and  Lincoln.  The  Sen- 
ate did  not  say  that  he  had  no  right  to  claim  any  con- 
stitutional prerogative,  and  that  he  was  not  worthy  to 
act  under  precedents  set  by  Washington,  Adams,  Mad- 
ison, and  Lincoln,  but  most  of  the  Senators  evidently 
so  thought.  The  proclamation  had  no  effect  upon  the 
qualifications  for  suffrage  in  the  face  of  the  Recon- 
struction Acts  and  the  “ State  ” constitutions  framed 
and  established  in  accordance  with  them.  It  was  little 
more  than  the  bull  against  the  comet. 

As  a sort  of  final  stroke  the  President  vetoed  the  bill 
The  Presi-  concerning  the  transfer  of  the  control  of 
dent’s  veto  of  the  colored  schools  in  the  District  of  Colum- 

theBill  in  re-  . . 

gard  to  the  coi-  bia,  and  the  bill  for  raising  the  duties  on 

ored  schools  . . , . TT 

in  the  District  imported  copper  and  copper  ores.  He  gave 
of  Columbia.  exceuent  reasons  for  both  of  these  vetoes,  but 
Congress  had  long  ceased  to  be  guided  by  reason  in 
matters  which  related  to  the  President. 

On  its  side  it  was  busy  with  a project  which,  though 
not  intended  as  a blow  at  him  particularly,  was  not 
in  accordance  with  his  view  that  the  regulation  of  the 
suffrage  within  the  “States”  was,  and  should  be,  left 
to  the  “States”  respectively,  and  exclusively,  viz.. 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


217 


the  proposed  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion. Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  incon- 
sistent doctrine,  we  might  almost  say  the  The  p. f_ 
timorous  subterfuge,  of  the  Republican  plat-  teenth  Amend- 
form  on  the  matter  of  negro  suffrage,  and 
to  the  growing  conviction  on  the  part  of  the  Republicans 
during  the  campaign  that  this  question  must  be  settled 
for  the  entire  country  alike,  and  by  a constitutional 
amendment.  At  the  opening  of  Congress  in  December, 
and  during  the  first  days  of  the  session,  the  proposi- 
tion was  presented  which  finally  took  on  the  form 
given  it  by  the  conference  committee  of  the  two  Houses 
in  the  words  : “The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the 
United  States  or  by  any  State  on  account  of  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude.  The  Congress  shall 
have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  appropriate  leg- 
islation.” It  was  passed  by  both  Houses  with  the 
requisite  two-thirds  majority  on  the  26th  of  February 
and  sent  to  the  legislatures  of  the  “ States  ” for  rat- 
ification. The  Republicans  had  at  last  come  to  the 
view  that  the  emancipation  of  the  freedmen  involved 
their  civil  equality  with  the  whites,  and  that  such 
equality  could  not  be  maintained  unless  they  possessed 
the  elective  franchise,  and  that  it  was  cowardly  for  the 
“States”  of  the  North  to  force  negro  suffrage  on  the 
South  without  accepting  it  for  themselves. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  full  freedom  implies  civil 
liberty  and  civil  equality,  but  there  was  another  way, 
and  a better  way,  to  have  secured  these  than  CriKcism  of 
by  the  immediate  and  universal  suffrage  of  the  Repub- 
the  newly  emancipated  in  all  their  ignorance,  an  view- 
immorality  and  poverty,  and  that  was  by  the  national- 
ization of  civil  liberty,  and  its  protection  and  enforce- 
ment by  the  United  States  courts.  Most  of  the  Repub- 


218 


RECONSTRUCTION 


licans  believed,  at  that  moment,  that  that  had  been  se- 
cured by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment ; and  there  can  be 
little  question  that  a very  important  consideration  with 
such  was  the  fear  that  after  Reconstruction  should  be 
accomplished,  the  Southern  “States”  might  amend  negro 
suffrage  out  of  their  “State  ” constitutions,  and  thus  de- 
stroy the  Republican  party  in  these  “ States,”  unless  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  should  be  so  amended 
as  to  prevent  it.  The  most  radical  among  them  were 
no  doubt  moved  chiefly  by  the  extravagant  humanitari- 
anism  of  the  period,  which  had  developed  in  their  minds 
to  the  point  of  justifying  not  only  the  political  equal- 
ity of  the  races,  but  the  political  superiority,  at  least 
in  loyalty  to  the  Union,  the  Constitution  and  republi- 
can government,  of  the  uncivilized  negroes  over  the 
whites  of  the  South  ; but  that  this  conviction  was  not 
very  strong  among  the  masses  of  them  can  be  readily 
concluded  from  the  fact  that  that  party  is  to-day  the 
party  which  is  following  the  European  idea  of  the  duty 
of  civilized  races  to  impose  their  political  sovereignty 
upon  uncivilized,  or  half  civilized,  or  not  fully  civilized, 
races  anywhere  and  everywhere  in  the  world.  No  party 
can,  in  so  short  a time,  so  completely  change  its  funda- 
mental principle  of  political  ethics  when  it  is  really  and 
conscientiously  believed  in  by  the  masses  of  the  party. 

This  proposed  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  not  sent  to 
the  President  for  his  approval,  but  went,  according  to 
Johnson’s  the  custom,  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  be 
tromThe  submitted  to  the  “ State  ” legislatures.  The 
presidency.  President  was  now  within  a very  few  days  of 
the  end  of  his  term.  His  sun  had  fairly  set,  and  the 
disrespect  felt  for  him  by  the  members  of  the  dominant 
party  in  Congress  and  out  of  Congress  was  expressed  in 
the  rude  and  quite  unprecedented  refusal  of  General 
Grant  to  sit  in  the  same  carriage  with  him  in  the  pro- 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


219 


cession  from  the  White  House  to  the  Capitol,  on  the 
4th  of  March,  for  the  ceremonies  of  the  inauguration  of 
the  new  President.  Discredited,  despised,  and  scoffed  at, 
as  a traitor  to  his  party,  to  his  political  creed,  and  to  his 
country,  Mr.  Johnson  stepped  down  from  the  high  office 
which  he  had  occupied  during  one  of  the  two  most  crit- 
ical periods  in  American  history  since  the  establishment 
of  the  present  Constitution. 

And  yet  it  is  certainly  true  that  the  Republican 
party  had  left  him  rather  than  that  he  had  left  the 
party.  This  party  began  simply  as  a Union  The  pregi. 
party  and  an  anti-slavery  extension  party.  Republican 
Mr.  Johnson,  an  original  Democrat,  joined  Party- 
with  the  Republicans  upon  this  basis,  and  he  never 
left  it.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  necessities  of 
the  war  for  the  Union  made  it  evident  that  the  slaves 
within  the  Southern  communities  which  had  declared 
secession,  and  were  engaged  in  rebellion,  must  be  pro- 
claimed free,  Mr.  Johnson  still  went  with  the  Re- 
publicans in  the  justification  of  this  measure.  And 
when,  finally,  the  war  was  ended  and  the  Union  was 
preserved,  and  the  Republicans  decided  that  the  legiti- 
mate outcome  of  the  victory  was  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  everywhere  within  the  United  States  by  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  Mr.  Johnson  still 
marched  with  them,  at  the  head  of  the  column.  It  was 
only  when  they  became  more  and  more  radical  in  their 
policy,  and  insisted  upon  transforming  rather  than  re- 
storing the  “States”  of  the  South,  by  placing  civil 
rights  under  national  protection  instead  of  “ State  ” 
protection,  disfranchising  the  whites  of  the  South,  and 
enfranchising  the  negroes,  and  upon  overcoming  the 
Executive’s  objections  to  these  movements  not  simply 
by  overriding  the  veto,  but  by  generally  subordinating 
the  Executive  to  Congress  — it  was  only  then  that  he 


220 


RECONSTRUCTION 


separated  from  them  and  fell  back  naturally  on  such 
support  as  he  could  get,  which  was  chiefly  from  the 
Democratic  party. 

No  fair  mind  can  claim  that  the  Republicans  in  their 
quarrel  with  the  President  had  not  departed  from  their 
solemn  declaration  made  in  Congress  assembled  in  those 
dark  July  days  of  1861,  just  after  the  first  great  defeat 
of  the  Union  arms,  “ That  this  war  is  not  waged  upon 
our  part  in  any  spirit  of  oppression,  nor  for  any  pur- 
pose of  conquest  or  subjugation,  nor  purpose  of  over- 
throwing or  interfering  with  the  rights  or  established 
institutions  of  the  Southern  States,  but  to  defend  and 
maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution,  and  to 
preserve  the  Union,  with  all  the  dignity,  equality,  and 
rights  of  the  several  States  unimpaired.”  And  it  was 
upon  the  basis  of  this  understanding  that  the  Democrats 
in  Congress,  Mr.  Johnson  among  them,  stood  with  the 
Republicans  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  It  is  indeed 
a serious  question  of  political  casuistry  as  to  how  far 
declarations  of  policy  are  binding  upon  a political  party. 
They  are  certainly  not  like  agreements  entered  into 
between  sovereign  states,  and  the  law  of  development 
rather  than  the  law  of  contract  must  be  the  constructive 
force  in  party  creed.  But  this,  at  least,  must  be  held, 
viz.,  that  a man  originally  not  of  a given  political  party, 
but  acting  with  it  upon  the  basis  of  a given  creed,  can- 
not be  accused  of  being  an  apostate  from  that  party  if 
he  does  not  continue  with  it  when  it  adopts  a new  creed 
in  many  respects  the  very  opposite  of  that  given  creed, 
except  in  the  most  groveling  sense  of  machine  politics  ; 
and  that  when  he  and  it  do  part  company,  more  by 
its  own  departures  from  the  given  creed  than  by  his, 
he  is  certainly  not  on  that  account  to  be  necessarily 
considered  as  a traitor  to  his  country.  The  truth  is, 
that  while  all  men  who  occupy  high  station  are  pecul- 


RECONSTRUCTION  RESUMED 


221 


iarly  subject  to  wanton,  as  well  as  ignorant,  assaults  upon 
their  purposes  and  their  conduct,  few  men  that  have 
occupied  so  high  a station  have  ever  been  so  unreasona- 
bly slandered  and  vilified  as  Andrew  Johnson.  His  own 
unfortunate  and  irritating  manners  and  methods  will  ac- 
count for  a good  deal  of  the  misunderstanding  of  his 
character,  but  the  violence  of  the  times  was  the  oc- 
casion of  a great  deal  more  of  it.  The  true  Union  men 
of  Tennessee  will,  however,  never  forget  the  hope,  and 
encouragement,  and  support  which  he  gave  to  them, 
when  they  were  left  in  the  lurch  by  their  own  natural 
leader,  John  Bell ; and  the  Nation  should  for  this,  if 
nothing  else,  write  his  name  in  the  book  of  its  heroes. 


CHAPTER  XI 

PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION 

The  Situation  at  the  Moment  of  Grant’s  Accession  to  Power — The 
Georgia  Question — The  Attitude  of  the  New  President  toward 
Reconstruction — The  Virginia  Case — Grant’s  Message  to  Con- 
gress of  April  7th,  1868,  and  His  Proclamation  of  May  14th 
— Ratification  of  the  Virginia  Constitution  and  Election  of 
“ State  ” Officers  under  it — The  Restoration  of  Virginia  to 
Her  Federal  Relations — Ratification  of  the  Mississippi  Consti- 
tution and  Election  of  “ State  ” Officers  and  Legislative  Members 
under  it — The  Restoration  of  Mississippi  to  Her  Federal  Re- 
lations— Ratification  of  the  Texas  Constitution  and  Election  of 
“ State  ” Officers  and  Legislative  Members  under  it — Restora- 
tion of  Texas  to  Her  Federal  Relations — Grant  and  the  Tenure- 
of  - Office  Act  — Congress  and  the  Tenure  - of  - Office  Act  after 
Grant’s  Accession  to  the  Presidency — The  Modification  of  the 
Tenure-of-Office  Act — The  President’s  Dissatisfaction  with  the 
Measure  — The  Facts  in  the  Georgia  Case  — New  Conditions 
Imposed  on  Georgia — The  Final  Restoration  of  Georgia  to  Her 
Federal  Relations — Negro  Rule  in  the  South  from  the  Point  of 
View  of  Political  Science  and  Ethnical  Principle. 

At  the  moment  of  Grant’s  accession  to  power,  four  of 
the  Southern  communities  were  still  denied  recognition  as 
“States”  upon  the  floor  of  Congress.  Three 
tion  at  the  of  the  four  had  not  yet  adopted  “ State  ” con- 
Grant’s  acces-  stitutions,  viz.  : Virginia,  Mississippi  and 
eion  to  power.  rpexag  . an(j  ^he  fourth,  Georgia,  the  repre- 
sentatives from  which  to  the  lower  House  of  Congress 
had  been  admitted  in  December  of  1868,  was  still  un- 
represented in  the  Senate,  for  the  reason  that  the  legis- 
lature of  Georgia,  after  electing  United  States  Senators, 

222 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  223 

had  rejected  the  negro  members-elect  of  that  body  on 
the  ground  that  negroes  were  not  eligible  to  legislative 
seats  in  Georgia. 

When  the  news  of  this  procedure  reached  Washington, 
the  Senate  held  back  from  admitting  the  Senators-elect 
from  Georgia  to  seats  and  did  not  admit  The  Georgia 
them  during  the  last  session  of  the  Fortieth  question. 
Congress  ; and  at  the  opening  of  the  Forty-first  Congress, 
on  March  4th,  1869,  the  day  of  Grant’s  inauguration, 
one  of  the  first  acts  of  the  respective  Houses  was  to  re- 
fuse admittance  to  the  representatives  from  Georgia  to 
either  House,  and  to  refer  their  credentials  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  each  House  on  Elections. 

In  his  inaugural  Address  the  new  President  made  no 
reference  to  these  questions,  but  he  had  hardly  been  one 
month  in  the  presidential  office  before  he 
recognized  the  difficulties  with  which  his  of  the  new 
predecessor  had  been  beset,  and  asked  and  arl^eco’n- 
almost  demanded  of  Congress  relief  from  Btrnctlon- 
them.  On  the  7th  day  of  April  he  addressed  a message 
to  Congress  requesting  that  body  to  provide  for  sub- 
mitting to  the  voters  of  Virginia  the  “ State  " constitution 
drafted  and  adopted  by  a constitutional  convention  at 
Richmond  nearly  a year  before,  and  recommending  that 
“a  separate  vote  be  taken  upon  such  parts  as  might  be 
thought  expedient,”  and  that  the  constitution,  “ or  such 
parts  thereof  as  shall  have  leen  adopted  by  the  people,” 
should  be  submitted  to  Congress  on  the  first  Monday  of 
the  following  December,  and  that  the  officers  provided 
for  under  the  said  constitution  should  be  chosen  at  the 
same  election. 

The  President  also  suggested  that  the  constitution 
framed  by  the  convention  in  Mississippi  and  rejected 
by  the  voters  might  be  resubmitted  in  the  same  way. 
The  events  in  Mississippi  culminating  in  the  rejection 


224 


RECONSTRUCTION 


of  the  proposed  State  constitution  by  the  voters  in  June 
of  1868  have  been  already  related. 

The  case  of  Virginia,  on  the  other  hand,  which 
differed  in  several  material  respects  from  that  of  any 
The  Virginia  the  others,  has  not  been  as  yet  sufficiently 
case-  stated  for  a clear  understanding  of  the  Presi- 

dent’s meaning  in  his  recommendations  to  Congress  of 
April  7th.  It  will  be  remembered  that  a loyal  govern- 
ment of  Virginia,  with  its  seat  first  at  Wheeling  and 
then  at  Alexandria,  existed  during  the  entire  period  of 
the  Civil  War,  and  that  from  1861  to  1864  Virginia, 
under  this  government,  had  been  represented  in  Con- 
gress, and  that  it  was  this  government  which  consented 
to  the  partition  of  Virginia  recognized  by  Congress. 
On  the  23d  day  of  May,  1865,  this  government  trans- 
ferred itself  from  Alexandria  to  Richmond,  having  been 
recognized  by  President  Johnson  on  May  9th  as  the  true 
government  of  Virginia.  The  legislative  department  of 
it  met  in  session  on  the  20th  of  June  following.  The 
Governor,  Mr.  Pierpont,  recommended,  in  his  message 
to  that  body,  that  a constitutional  amendment  should 
be  drafted,  and  proposed  by  it  to  the  voters  for  ratifica- 
tion, which  would  enfranchise,  and  qualify  for  office,  a 
much  larger  proportion  of  the  people  than  was  the  case 
under  the  revised  constitution  of  Virginia  of  1864, 
adopted  by  the  loyal  convention  at  Alexandria.  The 
legislature  followed  the  Governor’s  advice  and  proposed 
an  amendment  to  the  voters  which  granted  suffrage 
and  eligibility  substantially  to  the  old  ante-bellum  electo- 
rate and  eligibles  on  the  condition  of  future  loyalty  to 
the  United  States.  This  proposition  was  voted  on  at 
the  elections  held  on  the  12th  of  October  for  the  choice 
of  members  of  the  legislature  and  of  the  lower  House  of 
Congress,  and  was  ratified  by  a large  majority.  The 
election  was  held  in  every  county  and  the  result  was  fairly 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  225 


representative  of  the  people.  There  was  lacking  but  one 
thing  more  for  the  complete  restoration  of  the  “ State  ” 
to  its  federal  relations,  viz.,  the  admission  of  the  Senators 
and  Representatives  from  it  to  seats  in  Congress.  They 
presented  themselves  at  the  opening  of  the  Congressional 
session  on  the  first  Monday  of  December  following,  and 
were  excluded,  along  with  the  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives from  the  other  “Johnson  States,”  by  the  Stevens 
resolution. 

For  more  than  a year,  however,  this  government 
continued  to  act  as  the  “State”  government  of  Vir- 
ginia, under  the  limitations  placed  upon  it  by  the 
presence  of  the  military  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
interference  of  the  commanding  genera!  in  behalf  of 
the  freedmen.  On  January  15th,  1866,  the  legislature 
chosen  at  the  October  elections  of  the  preceding  year 
passed  the  vagrant  act,  which  defined  as  va-  The  Vagrant 
grants  “all  persons  who,  not  having  wherewith  Act- 
to  maintain  themselves  and  their  families,  live  idly  and 
without  employment,  and  refuse  to  work  for  the  usual  and 
common  wages  given  to  the  laborers  in  the  like  work  in 
the  place  where  they  are,”  and  which  authorized  the  con- 
demned vagrant  to  be  hired  out,  and  his  wages  applied  to 
his  own  use  or  the  use  of  his  family,  and,  in  case  of  his 
running  away  from  the  hirer,  to  be  apprehended  on  the 
warrant  of  a justice  and  returned  to  the  hirer,  who 
should  have  one  month  of  service  extra,  and  without 
wages,  for  the  interruption  of  the  service  contracted  for, 
and  other  trouble  and  expense,  and  should  also  have  the 
right,  by  permission  of  the  justice,  to  work  the  returned 
vagrant  with  ball  and  chain,  in  order  to  prevent  a repe- 
tition of  his  flight.  On  the  24th,  just  nine  days  after 
the  passage  of  the  act,  General  Terry,  the  military  com- 
mander at  Richmond,  issued  an  order  setting  aside  this 
measure  as  to  the  freedmen.  He  based  his  order  on  the 


226 


RECONSTEUCTION 


tendency  of  the  statute  to  influence  employers  to  com- 
bine for  the  purpose  of  lowering  the  wages  of  the  freed- 
men  to  a point  that  would  pauperize  them  and  drive 
General  Ter-  them  into  vagrancy,  and  create  thus  the  very 
tmg "aside  the  situation  which,  under  the  operation  of  the 
Vagrant  Act.  measure,  would  lead  to  a species  of  servitude 
worse  than  the  old  domestic  slavery.  He  had  no  reliable 
facts  of  experience  upon  which  to  base  his  theory.  It 
was  a bit  of  political  and  economic  prophecy  on  his  part. 
It  was  sufficient,  however,  to  call  down  maledictions  from 
the  Congress  at  Washington  and  the  people  of  the  North 
upon  the  legislature  at  Richmond  and  the  people  of 
Virginia  and  of  the  South  generally. 

Congress,  however,  gave  this  legislature  one  more 
opportunity  to  redeem  itself.  The  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
submitted  to  it  for  ratification  in  June  of  1866.  After 
long  deliberation  upon  it,  the  legislature  rejected  it  on 
the  9th  of  January,  1867.  This  act  sealed  the  fate  of 
that  legislature.  Virginia  was  brought,  with  the  other 
Southern  communities  which  had  rejected  or  not  adopted 
the  proposed  Amendment,  under  the  Reconstruction  Acts 
of  March,  1867,  and  became  the  first  military  district 
under  those  Acts,  with  General  Schofield  as  commander. 
Schofield  ordered  the  election  for  delegates  to  a constitu- 
tional convention,  by  the  voters  designated  in  the  Recon- 
struction Acts,  to  be  held  in  November  of  1867,  and 
ordered  the  delegates  so  elected  to  assemble  in  Richmond 
on  the  3d  of  the  following  December.  These  orders 
„ . . . were  successfully  executed  under  the  super- 

£ardDi8trictU"  vision  and  control  of  the  military.  Schofield 
himself  appeared  in  the  convention,  and 
urged  the  delegates  to  be  moderate  in  the  propositions 
for  the  disfranchisement  and  disqualification  of  those 
who  had  participated  in  rebellion.  But  the  delegates 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  227 

elected  under  tlie  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  by  the  elec- 
torate created  through  them,  were  not  only  radical,  but 
bent  upon  retaliation.  They  would  not  listen  to  the 
wise  counsel  of  Schofield,  but  drafted  and  adopted  such 
provisions  in  regard  to  suffrage  qualifications  and  eligi- 
bility to  office  and  mandate  as  would  have  put  the 
t:  State  ” government,  based  on  such  a constitution,  in 
the  hands  of  negroes,  “ scalawags ” and  “carpet-bag” 
adventurers.  The  opposition  to  these  provisions  on  the 
part  of  the  commander  and  the  Administration  at  "Wash- 
ington was,  however,  sufficiently  effective  to  delay  in- 
definitely the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the 
voters.  Near  the  end  of  the  year  1868,  a conference  of 
prominent  Virginians  assembled  at  Richmond  and  ap- 
pointed a committee,  and  sent  its  members  to  Washing- 
ton to  petition  Congress  to  allow  the  disfranchising  and 
disqualifying  clauses,  and  the  clauses  in  reference  to 
county  organization,  to  be  voted  on  separately  from  the 
other  parts  of  the  proposed  constitution.  This  com- 
mittee proceeded  to  Washington  in  January  of  1869, 
and  argued  their  case  before  committees  of  both  of  the 
Houses  of  Congress,  and  also  presented  the  same  to  the 
new  President-elect,  General  Grant. 

It  was  in  consequence  of  such  representations  and 
prayers,  that  President  Grant  sent  his  message  of  April 
7th  to  Congress,  requesting  authority  to  ac-  Grant.8me8 
cede  to  the  petition  of  the  Virginians,  and  sage  to  Con- 

a gress  of  April 

that  Congress  immediately  conferred  the  an-  rth,  1868,  and 
thority  upon  him.  Armed  with  this  author-  tfonPof 'auy 
ity,  the  President  issued  a proclamation  on  14th' 
the  14th  day  of  May,  1869,  commanding  the  “ State  ” con- 
stitution framed  for  Virginia  by  the  convention  which 
assembled  on  December  3d,  1867,  at  Richmond,  to  be 
submitted  to  the  voters,  on  July  6th,  1869,  for  ratifica- 
tion or  rejection,  and  also  commanding  that  those  pro- 


228 


RECONSTRUCTION 


visions  disqualifying  persons  from  voting  and  holding 
office  who  had  in  any  way  aided  the  rebellion  against 
the  United  States  should  be  separately  submitted. 

At  the  election  ordered  by  the  President,  the  consti- 
_ ...  ..  tution  without  these  clauses  was  ratified,  and 
ConBtiIutfonia  conservative  Republican  candidates  for 
office  and  legislative  membership  were  elected. 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress,  in  December  of  1869, 
the  Senators  and  Representatives  presented  themselves 
The  restora-  for  admission.  Their  claims  were  sustained 
ia°to°herir/ed-  by  the  President,  who  reported  to  Congress 
erai  relations.  yjrginja  had  fulfilled  all  of  the  condi- 

tions required  of  her  for  readmission  to  her  full  privi- 
leges as  a member  of  the  Union,  having  among  other 
things  ratified  by  legislative  acts  both  the  Fourteenth 
and  Fifteenth  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  urged  the  admission  of  the  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives  from  the  “ State  ” to  Congress. 
After  a good  deal  of  discussion  and  some  wrangling,  the 
bill  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  object  was  passed,  and, 
in  the  last  days  of  January  of  1870,  Virginia  was  re- 
stored to  her  proper  federal  relations,  on  the  conditions 
that  the  constitution  of  the  “ State  ” should  never  be  so 
amended  as  to  deprive  any  person  enfranchised  therein 
of  the  suffrage,  or  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  of  the  educational  rights  and  privileges 
provided  therein,  or  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  of 
the  equal  right  to  hold  office,  on  account  of  race,  color 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude,  or  of  the  school 
rights  provided  in  the  constitution  of  the  “State."  The 
Congressional  Act  also  undertook  to  purge  the  new 
“ State  " legislature  by  requiring  that  every  member 
must  take  an  oath  that  he  was  not  disqualified  by  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  or  that,  if  he  had  been,  he  had  also  been 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  229 


relieved  by  the  Congressional  Act  authorized  for  the 
case  in  the  Amendment. 

The  Act  of  Congress  of  April  10th  empowered  the 
President  to  deal  with  the  question  of  Reconstruction  in 
Mississippi  in  the  same  manner  as  in  Vir-  Ratification 
gitiia.  By  virtue  of  this  power,  the  Presi- 
dent  issued  a proclamation,  on  the  13th  of  tutl0n- 
July,  1869,  commanding  the  resubmission  to  the  voters 
of  the  constitution  adopted  by  the  Mississippi  conven- 
tion, on  the  15th  of  May,  1868,  and  rejected  by  the 
voters  as  stated  on  a previous  page,  and  designating  the 
30th  day  of  November,  1869,  as  the  date  of  the  election. 
As  in  the  case  of  Virginia,  the  President  ordered  a 
separate  vote  to  be  taken  upon  the  disfranchising  and 
disqualifying  clauses  of  the  constitution  which  pro- 
hibited any  person  from  voting  or  holding  office  who 
had  given  any  aid  or  comfort  to  persons  in  rebellion. 

The  result  of  the  vote  on  the  constitution  was  the 
same  as  in  Virginia.  The  constitution  was  ratified 
without  these  clauses  ; and  on  the  23d  of 

. The  reetora- 

February,  1870,  the  bill  for  the  restoration  tion  of  Missis- 
of  Mississippi  and  the  admission  of  the  Sena-  Federal ° rela- 
tors and  Representatives  from  the  “State”  tl0ns' 
to  Congress,  on  the  same  conditions  as  those  exacted  of 
Virginia,  became  law. 

The  Act  of  April  10th,  1869,  also  invested  the  Presi- 
dent with  the  power  of  ordering  the  submission  of  the 
constitution  framed  and  adopted  by  the  con-  „ _ „ 
vention  at  Austin,  Texas,  m June  of  1868,  to  oMfoe  Texas 
the  voters  for  ratification.  By  virtue  of  this 
authority,  the  President  ordered  a vote  to  be  taken  upon 
this  instrument  on  the  30th  day  of  November,  1869. 
This  proposed  constitution  did  not  contain  any  such  dis- 
franchising and  disqualifying  clauses  as  those  which 
rendered  the  Virginia  and  Mississippi  instruments  ob- 


230 


RECONSTRUCTION 


noxious  to  the  intelligence  of  these  communities,  and 
the  vote  was,  therefore,  ordered  to  be  taken  upon  the 
entire  constitution  at  once.  The  result  was  ratification  ; 

Restoration  and  on  the  30th  of  March,  1870,  the  Con- 
6 Federal  gressional  measure  for  the  complete  restora- 
relations.  tion  0f  Texas  to  her  proper  federal  relations, 
upon  the  same  fundamental  conditions  as  those  required 
of  Virginia  and  Mississippi,  became  law. 

Thus  while  the  new  President  did  not,  as  his  prede- 
cessor had  done,  dispute  the  power  of  Congress  to  direct 
and  control  the  reconstruction  of  the  disrupted  Southern 
communities  as  “ States  ” of  the  Union,  he  appealed  to 
Congress  for  the  authority  to  relieve  some  of  them  still 
suffering  under  military  rule  from  the  hard  alternative 
of  negro  domination,  and  when  Congress  gave  him  the 
power  requested,  he  used  it  for  the  amelioration  of  the 
situation.  This  was  true  statesmanship.  If  President 
Johnson  had  done  this  instead  of  insisting  upon  his 
constitutional  power  to  reconstruct,  independently  of 
Congress,  these  communities,  and  repeating  continually 
his  unsound,  though  specious,  arguments  in  support  of 
his  view,  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  might  have  main- 
tained his  influence,  in  some  degree  at  least,  with  the 
Republican  majority,  and  at  the  same  time,  and  in  con- 
sequence thereof,  might  have  accomplished  something  in 
the  interest  of  a true  conservatism  in  Reconstruction. 
This  is  not,  however,  certain.  Johnson  had  none  of 
Grant’s  vast  popularity  with  the  people  of  the  North 
whereby  to  overawe  Congress,  and  there  is  no  doubt, 
deny  it  as  we  may  to  conscious  reflection,  that  down 
below  consciousness  there  was  a sort  of  distrust  of  a 
Southern  Union  man  on  the  part  of  a large  portion  of 
the  people  of  the  North.  Mr.  Johnson  had  to  suffer 
under  the  influence  of  this  feeling,  like  all  others  of 
his  class,  and  whenever  he  suggested  any  moderate 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  231 


course  in  the  treatment  of  former  rebels,  he  fell  un- 
der the  suspicion  of  masking  sympathy  with  their  sen- 
timents under  a pretence  of  Unionism.  He  was,  thus, 
rather  an  object  of  Congressional  distrust  from  the 
first,  and  could  probably  never  have  done  so  much  as 
Grant  succeeded  in  doing  for  conservatism  in  Virginia 
and  Mississippi,  even  though  he  had  recognized  the 
power  of  Congress  in  the  work  of  reconstruction,  and 
had  preferred  respectful  requests,  instead  of  asserting 
presidential  prerogatives. 

Likewise  the  new  President  found,  as  soon  as  he  be- 
gan the  work  of  administration,  that  the  Tenure-of- 
Office  Act  was  an  unendurable  hindrance  to 
the  efficient  discharge  of  his  duties.  None  the  Tenure-of- 
of  Mr.  Johnson’s  Secretaries,  it  is  true,  gave  officeAct- 
him  any  trouble  by  attempting  to  hold  on  to  office  for 
the  one  month  allowed  them  after  the  expiration  of 
Mr.  Johnson’s  term.  The  men  nominated  by  President 
Grant  for  his  Cabinet  of  chiefs  and  advisers  were  im- 
mediately confirmed,  and,  with  one  exception,  inducted 
into  office.  These  men  were  E.  B.  Washburne,  of  Illi- 
nois, as  Secretary  of  State  ; A.  T.  Stewart,  of  New 
York,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ; A.  E.  Borie,  of 
Pennsylvania,  as  Secretary  of  the  Navy  ; J.  D.  Cox,  of 
Ohio,  as  Secretary  of  the  Interior ; E.  R.  Hoar,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, as  Attorney-General ; and  J.  A.  J.  Creswell, 
of  Maryland,  as  Postmaster-General.  No  immediate 
nomination  was  made  for  the  Secretaryship  of  War,  and 
General  Schofield  remained  for  a few  days  at  the  head  of 
the  Department.  The  President  soon  found  that  Mr. 
Stewart,  being  a large  importer  of  foreign  goods,  was  dis- 
qualified by  statute  from  holding  the  office  of  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury.  He  first  suggested  to  the  Senate  the  re- 
moval of  the  disability  by  a joint  resolution  of  Congress, 
and,  on  objection  being  made  to  the  introduction  of  a 


232 


RECONSTRUCTION 


bill  repealing  the  disqualifying  statute,  he  withdrew  the 
suggestion.  Mr.  Stewart  then  relieved  the  situation  by 
sending  in  his  declination,  and  the  President  nominated 
Mr.  G.  S.  Boutwell  of  Massachusetts  for  the  office, 
which  nomination  was  immediately  confirmed,  and  Mr. 
Boutwell  took  immediate  charge  of  the  Department. 
Mr.  Washburne,  the  Secretary  of  State,  resigned  the 
office  within  a few  days,  and  Mr.  Hamilton  Fish,  of 
New  York,  was  nominated  and  appointed  to  succeed  him. 
General  Schofield  next  resigned  the  War  Office,  and 
was  succeeded  by  General  John  A.  Rawlins  of  Illinois. 
Finally,  Mr.  Borie  resigned  in  June  the  Secretaryship  of 
the  Navy,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  G.  M.  Robeson  of 
New  Jersey.  The  Senate  put  nothing  in  the  way  of 
these  changes.  But  President  Grant  made  up  his 
mind  in  a very  few  days  after  his  inauguration  not  to 
have  his  hands  tied  in  regard  to  any  of  the  officers  for 
whose  acts  he  was  responsible.  He  gave  the  Republi- 
can leaders  in  Congress  to  understand  that  he  would 
allow  the  existing  incumbents  of  the  offices  to  remain 
in  office,  unless  they  should  commit  some  such  offence 
as  would  call  for  their  suspension,  so  long  as  the  Tenure- 
of-Office  Act  should  remain  on  the  statute  book.  The 
Republicans  were  hungry  for  a new  distribution  of  the 
spoils.  They  called  it  a righteous  desire  for  the  “ clean* 
ing  of  the  Augean  stables.”  Whatever  it  was,  they 
were  thrown  into  a great  state  of  trepidation  by  this 
covert  threat  of  the  President  not  to  clear  the  way  for 
their  friends. 

On  the  9th  day  of  March,  less  than  a week  after  the 
accession  of  the  new  President  to  power,  a bill  was  in- 
troduced into  the  House  of  Representatives  providing  for 
the  immediate  repeal  of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act,  and 
was  passed,  immediately  and  without  debate,  by  a vote 
of  138  to  16.  These  16  were  naturally  Republicans. 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  233 

The  Democrats  voted  for  the  repeal  on  principle.  When 
the  bill  reached  the  Senate  it  was  sent  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee.  This  Committee  quickly  re-  CongreB8 
ported  to  the  Senate  a substitute  for  the  bill 
of  the  House.  This  substitute  provided  that  Act  after 

. . , ...  , Grant’s  acces- 

the  Tenure-of-Office  Act  should  be  suspended  sion  to  the 

from  operation  until  the  next  session  of  Con-  pre8ldency- 
gress.  No  more  shameless  piece  of  partisanship  was  ever 
advanced  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  than  this.  It  simply 
meant,  suspend  the  Act  when  the  Republicans  wanted 
to  get  the  offices,  and  keep  it  in  force  when  they  might 
be  in  danger  of  being  put  out.  The  Senate  itself  could 
not  be  brought  to  vote  this  proposition  of  its  Judiciary 
Committee.  It  was  withdrawn  by  the  committee,  and 
Mr.  Trumbull  proposed  to  supersede  the  existing  law 
with  a measure  which  would  allow  the  President  to  sus- 
pend from  office  without  assigning  any  cause  for  the 
same  to  the  Senate,  or  even  reporting  the  suspension  to 
the  Senate,  and  to  nominate  to  the  Senate  a person  to 
fill  the  vacancy,  and  in  case  of  rejection  by  the  Senate 
to  nominate  another  person  ; and  only  when  the  session 
of  the  Senate  should  come  to  a close  without  a ratifica- 
tion should  the  suspended  officer  be  restored. 

It  was  pretty  clear  that  the  President  would  not  find 
any  trouble  with  such  a measure  as  this,  but  it  seemed 
to  the  House  that  the  Senate  was  trying  to  cling  to  a 
certain  control  over  the  Executive,  and  the  House  refused 
concurrence  vn  the  bill.  The  matter  was  finally  referred 
:o  a conference  committee,  and  this  committee  speedily 
matured  and  reported  a measure,  which  allowed  the  Pres- 
ident, during  a recess  of  the  Senate,  to  sus-  The  modifl- 
pend  any  civil  officer  appointed  by  and  with  f^ure-of-Of- 
the  consent  of  the  Senate,  except  judges  of  flceAct- 
the  United  States  courts,  until  the  end  of  the  next  ses- 
sion of  the  Senate,  and  to  designate  some  other  person 


234 


RECONSTRUCTION 


to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  vacant  office  in  the  mean- 
time, and  made  it  the  duty  of  the  President  simply  to 
nominate  to  the  Senate,  within  thirty  days  from  thebe- 
ginning  of  its  next  session,  some  one  to  succeed  to  the 
office  permanently,  and  in  case  the  Senate  should  refuse 
to  ratify  the  nomination,  to  nominate  another  person. 
Both  Houses  accepted  the  recommendation  of  the  Com- 
mittee and  the  bill  agreed  upon  by  its  members  became 
law  April  5,  1869. 

Still  the  President  was  not  satisfied  with  it.  He 
thought  that  any  control  whatever  of  the  Senate  over 
The  Presi-  dismissal  from  office  was  not  warranted 
fsfaction'wfth  by  the  Constitution,  and  he  regarded  the 
the  measure,  attempt  of  the  Senate  to  cling  to  any 
shadow  of  such  a power  as  a personal  affront  to  him- 
self. 

In  his  first  annual  Message,  that  of  December  6th,  1869, 
he  earnestly  recommended  the  total  repeal  of  the  Tenure- 
of-Office  Acts,  and  declared  them  both  unconstitutional, 
and  inconsistent  with  “a  faithful  and  efficient  admin- 
istration of  the  Government.”  His  recommendation 
was  probably  an  effective  warning  to  Congress  against 
any  attempt  to  hamper  him  by  claiming  any  power 
under  them  to  control  his  dismissals  and  suspensions, 
but  they  still  remained  on  the  statute  book  for  nearly 
two  decades  longer.  The  glaring  inconsistency  of  a bare 
and  bald  repeal  of  the  Acts  was  too  great  even  for  the 
partisan  Congress.  It  was  willing  to  make  them  prac- 
tically null  and  void,  but  it  wanted  a shadow  with  which 
to  cover  its  nakedness.  At  any  rate,  the  position  taken 
by  President  Grant  toward  them  was  a complete  vindi- 
cation of  President  Johnson’s  views  concerning  them, 
and,  in  no  small  degree,  of  his  deeds  also. 

At  the  date  of  this  Message  ail  of  the  Southern  com- 
munities had  completed  the  acts  required  by  Congress 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  235 


for  their  restoration  as  “ States  ” of  tlie  Union,  but  the 
result  of  the  elections  held  in  Mississippi  were  not  known 
in  Washington.  The  President  simply  expressed  the 
hope  that  the  constitutions  submitted  in  these  commu- 
nities to  the  voters  would  be  ratified,  and  “ thus  close 
the  work  of  Reconstruction.”  As  we  have  seen,  the 
elections  resulted  as  the  President  hoped,  and  these 
communities  were  restored,  on  the  basis  of  the  “ State  ” 
constitutions  adopted,  to  their  proper  federal  relations. 

The  case  of  Georgia  still  remained,  however,  un- 
settled, and  the  President  suggested  that  Congress 
should  enact  a law  authorizing  the  Governor 
of  Georgia,  Mr.  Bullock,  “to  convene  the  the  Georgia 
members  originally  elected  to  the  legislature,  caBe' 
requiring  each  member  to  take  the  oath  prescribed  by 
the  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  none  to  be  admitted  who 
were  ineligible  under  the  third  clause  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.”  The  situation  was  briefly  as  follows  : 
The  Senators  and  Representatives  from  Georgia  had 
been  refused  admission  to  seats  in  Congress  at  the  first 
session  of  the  Forty-first  Congress  which  convened  the 
4th  of  March,  1869,  because  the  legislature  of  Georgia 
had  expelled  the  colored  men  elected  to  that  body  as 
ineligible,  and  had  rejected  the  proposed  Fifteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  true  that  the  Senators  from  Georgia  had  been 
elected  by  the  legislature  before  the  colored  members 
were  expelled,  and  that  the  Representatives  had  been  ad- 
mitted to  seats  in  the  House  during  the  last  session  of  the 
Fortieth  Congress,  and  that  the  ostensible  reason  for  not 
admitting  the  members  to  the  lower  House  of  the  Forty- 
first  Congress  was  that  they  had  not  been  elected  to  the 
Forty-first  Congress.  However,  Georgia  had  no  represen- 
tation in  either  House  of  Congress  at  the  date  of  Presi- 
dent Grant’s  first  annual  Message  in  December  of  1869. 


236 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Her  “ State  ” government  seems,  therefore,  to  have  been 
considered  by  Congress  as  being  still  only  provisional, 
despite  the  fact  that  by  the  Act  of  June  25th,  1868,  she 
had  been  declared  entitled  to  admission  to  representa- 
tion in  Congress  upon  conditions  which  she  had  subse- 
quently fulfilled. 

A bill  had  been  introduced  into  Congress  soon  after 
the  opening  of  the  session  beginning  March  4th,  1869, 
dealing  with  the  subject.  It  was  claimed  in  the  preamble 
of  this  bill  that  the  Georgia  legislature  had  not  purged 
itself  of  disloyal  members  as  required  by  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
that  it  had  violated  the  constitution  of  Georgia  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  by  expelling  the 
negro  members  for  ineligibility,  and  that  the  civil  au- 
thorities in  the  “State  ” could  not,  or  did  not,  protect  the 
loyal  citizens  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  and  liberties 
or  even  in  their  persons.  The  bill  proposed  to  meet  these 
difficulties  by  providing  that  the  Governor  of  Georgia 
should  reconvene  the  originally  elected  members  of  the 
legislature,  reseat  the  expelled  negro  members,  and  ex- 
pel such  members  as  could  not  swear  that  they  were  not 
disqualified  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  It  may  be  remarked 
here  in  passing  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  does 
not  disqualify  anybody,  in  express  language,  from  being 
a member  of  a “ State  ” legislature.  It  disqualifies  all  per- 
sons who  have  engaged  in  rebellion  after  having  taken 
an  oath,  as  a member  of  Congress  or  of  a “ State  ” legis- 
lature, or  as  a United  States  or  a “ State”  officer,  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  from  holding 
a seat  in  Congress  or  from  being  an  officer  of  the  United 
States  or  of  a “ State,”  but  not  from  holding  a seat  in  a 
“ State  ” legislature.  The  word  officer  in  the  public 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  237 


jurisprudence  of  this  country  does  not  include  member- 
ship in  a legislative  body.  But  to  return  to  the  bill. 
It  provided  finally  for  making  United  States  troops  in 
Georgia  subject  to  the  Governor’s  call  for  assistance. 
This  bill  was  so  seriously  opposed  by  the  Democrats  and 
the  conservative  Republicans  that  it  did  not  pass,  and 
during  this  session  Congress  did  nothing  further  for  the 
restoration  of  Georgia. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  conservatives  in  Georgia  un- 
dertook to  do  something  for  themselves.  They  got  up 
a test  case  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  The  cage  f 
“State”  to  determine  the  rights  of  negroes  to  white  and 
hold  office.  The  case  was  that  of  White  and 
Clements,  and  the  office  involved  was  a county  court 
clerkship.  Of  course  the  decision  was  not  binding  upon 
the  legislative  houses  in  judging  of  the  eligibility  of 
their  members,  but  it  was  thought  that  it  would  have 
an  influence  upon  their  views.  The  court  decided  that 
under  the  new  constitution  of  Georgia  and  the  code 
of  Georgia  negroes  could  hold  office,  since  the  constitu- 
tion of  1868  declared  that  all  persons  born  or  naturalized 
in  the  United  States  and  residents  in  Georgia  were 
citizens  of  Georgia,  and  the  code  declared  that  among 
the  rights  of  citizens  was  the  right  to  hold  office. 
Of  course  the  legislature  could  abolish  or  amend  the 
code.  After  the  rendering  of  this  decision  the  conserva- 
tive members  of  the  legislature  requested  the  Governor, 
Mr.  Bullock,  who  was  a radical  Republican,  and  a New 
Yorker  by  birth,  to  reconvene  the  legislature  for  the 
purpose  of  reseating  the  expelled  negro  members.  The 
Governor  refused,  apparently  not  desiring  to  anticipate 
the  action  of  Congress  in  the  case.  The  attempt  of  the 
conservatives  to  help  themselves  thus  came  to  naught, 
and  the  unhappy  community  drifted  on  toward  anarchy 
and  violence,  according  to  the  report  now  made  by 


238 


RECONSTRUCTION 


General  Terry  to  the  President,  who  declared  it  to  be 
his  opinion  that  the  United  States  Government  must 
intervene  anew  in  order  to  preserve  it  against  that 
fate. 

It  was  then  with  a good  deal  of  irritation  that  Con- 
gress came  to  consider  the  subject  of  Reconstruction 
New  condi-  *n  Georgia  again  in  the  session  of  1869-70, 

tione  imposed  and  the  determination  soon  became  manifest 
on  Georgia. 

to  impose  additional  and  harder  conditions 
upon  this  community  than  upon  the  others.  Moreover, 
as  matters  appeared  at  that  juncture,  the  ratification 
of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  by  the  legislature  of 
Georgia  would  be  necessary  to  make  out  the  required 
three-fourths  majority.  It  was  in  this  temper,  and  un- 
der the  pressure  of  this  supposed  necessity,  that  Congress, 
acting  promptly  upon  the  general  suggestion  in  the 
President’s  Message,  passed  a bill  which  provided  that 
the  Governor  of  Georgia  should  forthwith  summon  the 
persons  declared  by  the  proclamation  of  General  Meade, 
of  the  date  of  June  25th,  1868,  to  be  members-elect 
of  the  legislature,  to  assemble  at  Atlanta ; that  every 
such  person  should  take  an  oath  or  affirmation  that  he 
had  never,  after  having  been  a member  of  Congress  or  of 
a “ State  ” legislature,  or  an  officer  of  the  United  States 
or  of  a “ State”  “engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion 
against  the  United  States,  or  given  any  aid  or  comfort 
to  its  enemies,  or  rendered,  except  in  consequence  of  di- 
rect physical  compulsion,  any  support  or  aid  to  any  in- 
surrection, or  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or 
held  any  office  under,  or  given  any  support  to,  any 
government  of  any  kind  acting  in  hostility  to  the 
United  States,  or  levying  war  against  the  United  States,” 
or  should  make  oath  or  affirmation  that,  if  he  had  so 
acted,  he  had  been  relieved  by  Congress  from  any  dis- 
ability attaching  to  such  act  in  the  manner  provided  in 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  239 

the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  ; that 
in  case  any  person  claiming  to  be  a member  of  the 
legislature  should  fail  to  make  such  an  oath  or  af- 
firmation he  should  be  excluded  from  a seat  in  the 
body  ; that  no  member-elect  should  be  excluded  on  ac- 
count of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude  ; 
that,  on  application  of  the  Governor,  the  President 
should  employ  the  military  power  of  the  United  States 
to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  Act ; and  that  the  legis- 
lature of  Georgia  should  ratify  the  proposed  Fifteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
before  Senators  and  Representatives  from  Georgia 
should  be  admitted  to  seats  in  Congress.  This  bill  was 
approved  by  the  President  on  the  22d  of  December, 
1869. 

So  great  was  the  opposition  to  Reconstruction,  under 
these  hard  conditions,  on  the  part  of  the  white  people 
in  Georgia,  that  the  Governor  was  obliged  Resumption 
to  call  for  the  military  of  the  United  States  government 
to  aid  him,  and  finally  to  step  aside  for  m Georgia. 
General  Terry,  who  by  an  order  from  the  President, 
dated  January  4th,  1870,  was  authorized  to  resume  the 
powers  in  Georgia  of  the  commander  of  a military  dis- 
trict, as  provided  under  the  Reconstruction  Act  of  March 
2d,  1867.  The  General  found  a number  of  members  in 
the  legislature  recognized  by  General  Meade’s  procla- 
mation who  could  not  take  either  of  the  oaths  or  affirma- 
tions prescribed.  These  he  caused  to  be  removed  from 
their  seats  in  very  arbitrary  ways.  This  procedure  put 
the  Republicans  in  the  legislature  in  majority,  and  they 
filled  these  vacancies  by  admitting  persons  who  had  re- 
ceived the  next  highest  number  of  votes  to  those  cast 
for  the  expelled  members  in  the  election,  and  who  could 
take  one  or  the  other  of  the  oaths  or  affirmations  pre- 
scribed in  the  Act  of  the  22d  of  December,  1869. 


240 


KECONSTKTTCTION 


The  legislature  as  thus  reconstructed  was  approved  by 
the  military  authorities,  and  it  now  proceeded  to  fulfil 
Ratification  the  final  condition  required  of  Georgia,  viz., 
teenthimend-  the  ratification  of  the  proposed  Fifteenth 
Georgia^iegis^  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
lature.  United  States.  It  also  ratified  the  Four- 

teenth Amendment.  This  was,  from  a legal  point  of 
view,  entirely  superfluous,  since  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment was,  at  the  moment,  already  a part  of  the  Consti- 
tution, as  much  so  as  any  other  Article,  and  in  resuming 
the  status  of  a “ State”  in  the  Union,  Georgia  was,  of 
course,  subject  to  all  parts  of  the  Constitution  alike. 
The  legislature  might,  with  equal  reason,  have  ratified 
specially  any  other  part  of  the  Constitution.  The  idea 
seems  to  have  been  to  correct  any  possible  defects  in  the 
ratification  of  this  amendment  which  the  Georgia  legis- 
lature had  voted  on  July  21st,  1868. 

This  purified  legislature  now  elected  United  States 
Senators,  both  of  them  Republicans,  of  course.  All 
Further  de-  these  things  were  done  in  the  latter  part  of 
miBsioi^of  January  and  the  early  part  of  February  of 
tfves  from  1870,  and  as  the  Congress  was  in  session, 
Georgia.  there  was  reason  to  expect  that  Georgia  would 
be,  at  once,  fully  restored  as  a “ State”  of  the  Union. 
A bill  was  reported  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
the  25th  of  February  from  the  Committee  on  Recon- 
struction for  this  purpose.  It  was  nearly  identical  in  its 
provisions  and  language  with  the  Virginia  and  Mis- 
sissippi bills,  but  it  dragged  along  through  nearly  five 
months  of  debate  and  partisan  wrangling  before  it 
became  law.  The  reason  of  this  delay  was  that,  on 
March  4th,  General  Butler  proposed  an  amendment  to 
the  bill  which  provided  : “ That  the  power  granted  by 
the  constitution  of  Georgia  to  the  general  assembly  to 
change  the  time  of  holding  elections,  and  prescribe  the 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  241 

day  of  meeting  of  the  general  assembly,  shall  not  be  so 
exercised  as  to  postpone  the  election  of  the  next  general 
assembly  beyond  the  Tuesday  after  the  first  Monday  in 
November  in  the  year  1872,  nor  shall  such  power  ever 
be  by  any  future  legislature  so  exercised  as  to  extend  the 
term  of  any  office  beyond  the  regular  period  named  in 
said  constitution ; and  the  said  general  assembly  shall 
by  joint  resolution  consent  to  this  condition  before  this 
Act  shall  take  effect.” 

This  language  was  at  once  taken  to  mean  that  Congress 
would  undertake  to  empower  the  legislature  of  Georgia  to 
extend  the  terms  of  the  members  of  the  Georgia  legislature 
and  of  the  Governor,  elected  in  April  of  1868,  by  two 
years,  on  the  ground  that  the  “ State” government  of 
Georgia  was  still  provisional,  and  would  so  remain  until 
the  passage  of  this  Act,  and  that  these  terms  would,  there- 
fore, not  really  begin  until  the  passage  of  this  Act.  The 
conservative  Republicans  as  well  as  the  Democrats  repu- 
diated this  interpretation  of  the  powers  of  Congress  to 
extend,  or  to  authorize  the  “ State  ” legislature  to  ex- 
tend, the  terms  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  and  of 
“ State  ” officers  as  an  unprecedented  usurpation.  Some 
of  them  repudiated  the  idea  that  there  could  be  a provi- 
sional “ State  ” government,  and  declared  that  any 
further  legislation  in  regard  to  the  reconstruction  of 
Georgia  was  unnecessary,  since  the  Act  of  June  25th, 
1868,  had  restored  Georgia  to  her  position  as  a “ State  ” 
of  the  Union,  along  with  North  Carolina,  South  Caro- 
lina, Louisiana,  Alabama,  and  Florida,  upon  certain 
conditions,  all  of  which  Georgia  had  fulfilled,  just  as 
the  others  had  done,  and  since  all  the  others  had 
been  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  of  their  rights 
and  privileges  as  “ States  ” of  the  Union  without 
any  further  legislation  than  the  Act  of  June  25th, 
1868. 


242 


RECONSTRUCTION 


There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Butler  amendment  meant, 
and  was  intended  by  its  author  to  mean,  just  what  was 
charged  by  the  conservatives.  General  Butler  at  last 
acknowledged  and  avowed  it,  and  attempted  to  justify 
it.  But  he  was  unable  to  rally  a majority  to  sustain  it, 
and  he  withdrew  it  in  the  face  of  an  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  Bingham  on  the  7th,  which  provided  that  noth- 
ing contained  in  the  bill  should  be  construed  either  to 
vacate  any  of  the  “ State  ” offices  in  Georgia,  or  to  extend 
the  terms  of  the  present  holders  of  them  beyond  the  time 
provided  in  the  “ State  ” constitution,  or  deprive  the  peo- 
ple of  Georgia  of  the  right  under  their  “State”  con- 
stitution of  electing  members  of  their  legislature  in  the 
year  1870. 

This  amendment  was  passed  on  the  8th  of  March, 
and  the  bill  as  thus  amended  was  passed  by  the  House 
of  Representatives,  and  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the  same 
day.  It  was  immediately  referred  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  that  body  and  on  the  next  day,  the  9th,  it 
was  reported  back  to  the  Senate  by  this  committee,  with- 
out amendment.  The  Senate  now  considered  it  in 
committee  of  the  whole  from  this  time  to  April  19th, 
and  when  it  was  reported  to  the  Senate  it  had  been 
changed  to  a bill  which  declared  the  existing  govern- 
ment of  Georgia  to  be  provisional  and  subject  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  of  1867  ; or- 
dered an  election  in  Georgia  on  the  15th  day  of  Novem- 
ber, 1870,  for  members  of  the  “State”  legislature  as  pro- 
vided for  in  the  “ State  ” constitution  of  1868  ; ordered 
the  assembly  of  this  legislature  on  the  13th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1870,  and  its  organization  preparatory  to  the  ad- 
mission of  the  “ State”  to  representation  in  Congress  ; 
declared  that  the  powers  and  functions  of  the  members 
of  the  existing  legislature  should  cease  on  the  13th  day 
of  December,  1870 ; and  made  it  the  duty  of  the  Pres- 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  243 

ident  of  the  United  States,  in  case  of  domestic  violence 
in  any  municipality  in  the  “State,”  reported  to  him  by 
the  legislature  or  Governor  of  the  State,  to  suppress  by 
military  power  such  domestic  violence,  and  “ to  exercise 
all  such  powers  and  inflict  such  punishments  as  may  by 
the  laws,  or  the  rules  and  articles  of  war  be  exercised 
or  inflicted  in  case  of  insurrection  or  invasion.”  The 
Senate  concurred  in  the  recommendations  of  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  and  added  a provision  repealing 
that  part  of  the  Act  of  March  2d,  1867,  which  prohibited 
the  organizing  of  any  militia  force  in  Georgia. 

In  this  form  and  with  this  content  the  bill  was  re- 
turned to  the  House.  Here  it  was  again  debated,  off 
and  on,  until  June  24th,  when  it  was  finally  The  final 
agreed  upon  with  the  following  contents  : restoration  of 
“ That  the  State  of  Georgia  having  complied  Feta®1  re- 
with  the  Eeconstruction  Acts,  and  the  Four- 
teenth and  Fifteenth  Articles  of  Amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  having  been  ratified  in 
good  faith  by  a legal  legislature  of  said  State,  it  is 
hereby  declared  that  the  State  of  Georgia  is  entitled  to 
representation  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
But  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  to 
deprive  the  people  of  Georgia  of  the  right  to  an  election 
for  members  of  the  general  assembly  of  said  State,  as 
provided  for  in  the  constitution  thereof,”  and  “That 
so  much  of  the  Act  of  March  2d,  1867,  as  prohibits 
the  organization,  arming,  or  calling  into  service  of  the 
militia  forces  in  the  States  of  Georgia,  Mississippi, 
Texas  and  Virginia  be,  and  the  same  is,  hereby  re- 
pealed.” 

The  Senate  disagreed  to  the  bill  in  this  form  and 
with  these  contents,  and  asked  for  a conference  com- 
mittee. The  House  agreed  and  appointed  members. 
The  conference  committee  agreed  upon  the  bill  as  per- 


244. 


RECONSTRUCTION 


fected  by  the  House  with  the  addition  to  the  second 
section  of  these  words  : “And  nothing  in  this  or  any 
other  Act  of  Congress  shall  be  construed  to  affect  the 
term  to  which  any  officer  has  been  appointed  or  any 
member  of  the  general  assembly  elected,  as  prescribed  by 
the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Georgia.”  Both  the 
Senate  and  the  House  accepted  and  concurred  in  the 
recommendations  of  the  committee,  and  the  bill,  as  thus 
perfected,  became  law  on  the  15th  day  of  July,  1870. 
This  bill  terminated  the  era  of  Reconstruction  legisla- 
tion by  Congress,  and  at  the  next  session  of  Congress, 
the  session  of  1870-71,  the  Senators  and  Representatives 
from  Georgia  were  admitted  to  their  seats,  the  Senate 
admitting  those  chosen  to  that  body  in  July  of  1868, 
Messrs.  Hill  and  Miller.  The  attempt  of  Governor  Bul- 
lock to  prolong  the  terms  of  the  members  of  the  legislat- 
ure and  of  the  officers  of  the  “ State  ” government  was 
decidedly  disapproved  of  by  President  Grant’s  Adminis- 
tration, and  an  election  was  held  for  members  and  county 
officers  and  for  Representatives  in  Congress  in  December 
of  1870.  The  white  residents  of  the  “State  ’’stood  well 
together,  and  carried  the  election  by  a large  majority 
against  the  Republicans.  So  soon  as  the  result  was 
known  Governor  Bullock,  whose  term  had  still  two  more 
years  to  run,  abandoned  his  office  and  left  the  “ State,” 
and  Georgia  was  thus  early  rescued  from  negro  domina- 
tion, or  rather  “ carpet-bag  ” domination  through  negro 
suffrage.  Her  harder  experiences  during  the  years 
from  1868  to  1870  had  worked  out  to  her  advantage, 
in  that  it  brought  the  respectable  and  capable  portion 
of  her  white  citizens  together  earlier  than  was  the  case 
in  the  other  reconstructed  Commonwealths  similarly 
situated. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  a sound  political  science 
the  imposition  of  universal  negro  suffrage  upon  the 


PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  RECONSTRUCTION  245 


Southern  communities,  in  some  of  which  the  negroes 
were  in  large  majority,  was  one  of  the  “ blunder-crimes  ” 
of  the  century.  There  is  something  natural  Negr0  ruIe 
in  the  subordination  of  an  inferior  race  to  a in  th,®  Soutt; 

from  the  point 

superior  race,  even  to  the  point  of  the  en-  of  view  of  po- 

, . , . ...  , , . litical  science 

slavement  of  the  inferior  race,  but  there  is  and  ethnical 
nothing  natural  in  the  opposite.  It  is  entirely  prmciple' 
unnatural,  ruinous,  and  utterly  demoralizing  and  bar- 
barizing to  both  races.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  creation  of  such  a relation  between  the  blacks  and 
whites  of  the  South  was  at  all  within  the  intentions  of 
the  framers  of  the  Eeconstruction  Acts.  They  were 
irritated  because  these  communities  would  not  accord 
civil  equality  to  the  freedmen,  would  not  accept  the 
proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  had  passed  acts 
which  created  a new  species  of  slavery  or  quasi-slavery  of 
the  blacks.  They  thought  they  were  placed  between 
the  alternative  of  continuing  military  government  in 
the  South  indefinitely,  or  giving  the  negro  the  political 
power  with  which  to  maintain  his  civil  rights. 

Opposition  to  military  government  in  time  of  peace 
was  an  ingrained  principle  of  the  American  people,  and 
there  was  a large  part  of  people  of  the  North,  nearly  all 
adhering  to  the  Republican  party,  who  believed  that  man- 
hood suffrage  was  the  true  principle  of  a sound  political 
science.  And  it  was  thought  that  the  only  way  of  creat- 
ing “ States  ” in  the  South  which  would  sustain  the 
Republican  party  was  by  giving  the  negro  the  suffrage. 
It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  they  adopted  the  course 
which  they  did.  There  was  a third  alternative,  as  has 
already  been  pointed  out,  viz.,  the  placing  of  these  com- 
munities under  Territorial  civil  government  and  keep- 
ing them  there  until  the  spirit  of  loyalty  to  the  Nation ' 
was  established  and  the  principle  and  practice  of  civil 
equality  among  all  citizens  was  made  thoroughly  secure. 


246 


RECONSTRUCTION 


But,  as  has  been  said,  the  idea  that  these  communities 
were  “States”  of  the  Union,  notwithstanding  their  re- 
bellion against  the  United  States  and  their  attempted 
secession  from  the  Union,  seemed  to  prohibit  the  follow- 
ing of  this  course,  the  only  true  and  sound  course.  And 
so  these  unhappy  communities  were  given  over,  as  sham 
“States”  of  the  Union,  to  the  rule  of  the  ignorant  and 
vicious  part  of  their  population,  to  be  sustained  therein 
by  the  military  power  of  the  Nation,  under  the  excuse 
that  that  part  alone  was  loyal. 

A period  of  darkness  now  settled  down  upon  these 
unhappy  communities  blacker  and  more  hopeless  than 
the  worst  experiences  of  the  war.  The  conduct  of  the 
men  who  now  appeared  upon  the  scene  as  the  creators  of 
the  new  South  was  so  tyrannic,  corrupt,  mean  and  vul- 
gar as  to  repel  the  historian  from  attempting  any  detailed 
account  of  their  doings,  and  incline  him  to  the  vaguest 
outline.  Moreover  it  is  most  difficult  to  fix  upon  re- 
liable facts  in  this  period  of  confusion  and  political  night, 
illuminated  only  by  the  lurid  gleams  of  passion  and 
hatred.  It  is  best  for  the  North,  best  for  the  South, 
best  for  the  whole  country,  and  best  for  the  world  that 
this  terrible  mistake  of  the  North  and  this  terrible  deg- 
radation of  the  South  should  be  dealt  with  briefly  and 
impersonally,  and  that  lessons  of  warning  should  be 
drawn  from  these  experiences,  instead  of  multiplying 
criminations  atid  recriminations  in  regard  to  them. 


CHAPTER  XII 


“CARPET-BAG”  AND  NEGRO  DOMINATION  IN  THE 
SOUTHERN  STATES  BETWEEN  1868  AND  1876 

Escape  of  Virginia,  Georgia  and  Texas  from  Negro  Rule — North 
Carolina’s  Rapid  Recovery  from  Negro  Rule  — The  Loyal 
League — Origin  of  the  K.  K.  K.’s — Methods  of  the  Ku-Klux— 
Periods  in  the  History  of  Negro  Rule — The  Act  for  the  Enforce- 
ment of~tire_New~  Amendments — The  Corruption  in  the  New 
“State”  Governments — The  Supplemental  Enforcement  Act 
— The  President’s  Proclamation  of  March  23d,  1871 — The  Ku- 
Klux  Act  of  April  20,  1871 — Interference  of  the  United  States 
Military  Power  in  the  Affairs  of  South  Carolina — The  Presi- 
dent’s Proclamation  of  May  3d,  1871 — The  President’s  Procla- 
mation to  the  People  of  South  Carolina — The  Ku-Klux  Trials 
— Corruption  in  the  State  Governments  of  the  South — The  Re- 
volt in  the  Republican  Party — The  Liberal  Republican  Con- 
vention of  1872 — Acceptance  of  the  Liberal  Republican  Can- 
didates by  the  Democrats — Division  in  the  Democratic  Party 
— The  Republican  Platform  and  Nominees — The  Republican 
Triumph  — Events  in  Alabama — Events  in  Louisiana  — The 
Downward  Course  between  1872  and  1874 — The  Election  of 
1874  — The  Change  in  Alabama,  Arkansas  and  Texas  — The 
Status  in  South  Carolina  in  1874 — The  Day  of  Complete  De- 
liverance— The  Status  in  Mississippi  in  1875 — Fiat  Money  and 
the  Resumption  of  Specie  Payments — The  Inflation  Bill  of 
1874  and  the  Veto  of  it  by  the  President 

Virginia,  Texas  and  Georgia  had  been  in  no  great 
hurry,  as  we  have  seen,  to  exchange  military  government 
exercised  by  the  white  officers  of  the  United  E8Cape  of 
States  army  for  “ State  ” government  under  v i r g i n i a, 

J , . Georgia  and 

the  electorate  proposed  m the  Reconstruction  Texas  f^om 
Acts.  In  this  they  were  wise.  The  army  neeronie- 
officers  did  not,  as  a rule,  sympathize  with  the  radical 

247 


248 


RECONSTRUCTION 


movements  of  the  Republicans  in  Congress,  and  they  so 
executed  the  duties  imposed  upon  them  as  to  cause 
the  least  suffering  and  inconvenience.  Their  rule, 
though  exercised  under  a repellent  title,  was  in  fact 
far  milder  than,  and  far  preferable  to,  the  civil  govern- 
ment of  the  adventurer  and  the  negro.  They  mingled 
socially  with  the  old  families,  and,  in  many  cases,  mar- 
ried their  fair  daughters.  The  common  soldiers  from 
the  Northern  “ States  ” also  fraternized  with  their  race 
relatives  in  the  South.  They  did  not  fancy  the  black 
soldiers  either  of  the  regular  army  or  the  “ State  ” mi- 
litia, and  many  were  the  cases  in  which  they  intervened 
between  the  defenceless  ex-Confederates  and  the  brutal 
blacks  in  blue.  It  is  even  said  by  men  who  have  every 
opportunity  to  know  that  many  of  them  doffed  their 
uniforms  on  election  day,  went  to  the  polls,  and  voted 
the  Democratic  ticket. 

In  spite  of  the  threats  of  Congress,  and  the  ever-in- 
creasing conditions  imposed  by  that  body  upon  the  per 
mission  to  resume  the  “ State  ” status,  these  three  com- 
munities held  out  under  military  rule  until  so  many  of 
their  leading  citizens  had  been  amnestied  by  Congress 
and  made  again  eligible  to  office  and  mandate,  and  until 
so  much  better  provisions  concerning  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  the  ex-Confederates  had  been  secured,  as  to  put 
them  in  a far  better  position  to  resume  “ State  ” govern- 
ment than  was  the  case  two  years  before.  Moreover,  these 
communities  had  larger  white  than  black  populations. 
After  their  full  restoration,  consequently,  Virginia  and 
Georgia  escaped  largely  the  suffering  experienced  by  most 
of  the  others,  and  Texas  also  managed  to  pull  through 
the  years  from  1870  to  1874  with  only  about  a four-fold 
increase  of  taxation,  and  the  creation  of  a debt  of  only 
about  5,000,000  of  dollars,  when  she  reached  the  period 
of  union  of  almost  all  her  best  citizens  in  the  Demo 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  249 


cratic  party,  which,  in  the  election  of  Richard  Coke  as 
Governor  in  1874,  and  of  a majority  of  the  legislative 
members,  permanently  triumphed  in  Texas.  Mississippi 
also  had  held  back  in  1868  and  1869,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  order  to  secure  better  terms  for  the  ex-Confederates 
in  the  enfranchising  and  disfranchising  provisions  of  the 
“ State  ” constitution,  and  by  doing  so  had  accomplished 
this  result.  But  Mississippi  was  one  of  the  three  South- 
ern communities  in  which  the  negro  population  far  out- 
numbered the  white.  Mississippi  was  not,  for  this  rea- 
son chiefly,  so  fortunate  as  Virginia,  Texas  and  Georgia. 
She  was  obliged,  with  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana,  to 
pass  through  the  fiery  furnace  in  order  to  fuse  the  re- 
spectable white  elements  in  her  population  into  a single 
poTTficaT  party  with  a well-understood  and  a well-de- 
termined purpose. 

Of  all  the  ‘ ‘ States  ” included  in  the  Congressional  Act 
of  June  25th,  1868,  only  North  Carolina  had  been  fort- 
unate enough  to  rid  herself,  before  1872,  of  North  caro- 
the  rule  of  the  adventurers  and  their  igno-  cweryTr^m 
rant  negro  support.  This  happened  because  neer0  rule- 
matters  were  driven  to  a crisis  sooner  here  than  else- 
where. The  legislature  of  1868  had  proceeded  prompt 
ly  to  authorize  the  issue  of  $25,000,000 , of  bonds,  when 
the  whole  taxable  property  of  the  “ State  ” was  not  over 
$125,000,000.  From  the  first  moment  the  people  were 
threatened  with  confiscation,  and  when  to  this  was 
added  the  legislative  act,  known  as  the  Schaffner  law, 
authorizing  the  Governor  to  suspend  civil  government, 
and  institute  martial  law  in  any  part  of  the  “ State/’ 
and  when  he  actually  undertook  to  do  so  in  three  coun- 
ties of  the  “ State,”  the  whites  came  together  in  the 
election  of  1870,  captured  the  legislature  and  redeemed 
the  “ State  ” from  the  hideous  tyranny  with  which  it 
was  threatened. 


250 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Already  before  the  Reconstruction  Acts  were  passed, 
the  political  adventurers  in  the  South  had  begun  organ- 

The  Loyal  izing  the  negroes  into  secret  bodies,  known 
League.  later  as  the  Union  or  Loyal  League.  The 
members  of  these  bodies  were  sworn  to  obey  the  decisions 
of  the  organization  and  to  execute  them.  The  original 
idea  seems  to  have  been  a combination  for  protection 
against  bands  of  lawless  white  people,  and  for  mutual 
aid  and  assistance  in  the  hard  struggle  for  existence  to 
which  the  freedmen  were  now  exposed.  The  League 
soon  took  on,  however,  a political  character,  and  be- 
came a sort  of  Republican  party  organization  in  the 
South. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  whether  the  Ku-Klux  or- 
ganization preceded  that  of  the  Loyal  League  and  pro- 
Originofthe  voked  it  or  not.  So  far  as  we  know,  both  of 
k.k.k.’s.  them  were  first  heard  of  in  the  year  1866. 
It  is  probable  that  the  Ku-Klux  had  its  origin  a little 
farther  north  than  the  Loyal  League.  It  is  said  by 
those  who  profess  to  know  most  about  it,  that  the  first 
appearance  of  this  body  was  in  one  of  the  southern 
counties  of  Tennessee,  Giles  County ; that  it  was  first 
organized  by  a lot  of  young  loafers,  probably  ex- Con- 
federate soldiers,  who  lived  in  the  town  of  Pulaski,  the 
county  town  of  that  county  ; and  that  their  first  purpose 
was  the  playing  of  practical  jokes  upon  the  ignorant 
and  superstitious  negroes  of  the  neighborhood.  They 
operated  in  the  night-time,  went  disguised,  travelled  on 
horseback,  their  horses  being  also  disguised,  and  were 
oath-bound  to  execute  the  decisions  of  the  organization, 
and  to  protect  each  other.  Whatever  may  have  been 
its  origin,  this  body  also  soon  found  its  political  useful- 
ness. It  soon  proved  to  be  a powerful  means  for  intim- 
idating and  terrorizing  the  negroes,  and  also  white  men 
acting  with  the  negroes. 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  251 

After  the  Reconstruction  Acts  were  passed  and  put 
into  operation,  and  especially  after  the  Southern  com- 
munities were  reorganized  as  “ States”  un-  Methods  of 
der  them,  and  the  military  governments  theKuKlux- 
gave  way  to  the  “ State  ” governments,  this  organiza- 
tion spread  all  over  the  South,  and  contributed  much 
by  its  violent  and  unlawful  methods  toward  wringing 
finally  the  new  “State”  governments  of  the  South 
from  the  hands  of  the  negroes  and  the  “ carpet-baggers.” 
As  it  extended,  its  methods  became  more  lawless  and 
violent.  Its  members  whipped,  plundered,  burned, 
abducted,  imprisoned,  tortured  and  murdered,  for  the 
prime  purpose  of  keeping  the  negroes  from  exercising 
suffrage  and  holding  office.  They  were  protected  by 
many  respectable  people  who  would  not  have  partici- 
pated personally  in  their  nefarious  work.  And  they  had 
confederates  everywhere,  who,  upon  the  witness  stand 
and  in  the  jury  box,  would  perjure  themselves  to  pre- 
vent their  conviction  and  punishment.  It  was  even 
said  that  there  were  many  cases  where  members  of  these 
Klans  were  able  to  have  themselves  subpoenaed  as  wit- 
nesses, or  summoned  as  jurors,  in  the  trials  of  their 
comrades,  and  that  they  were  sworn  to  perjure  them- 
selves, if  necessary,  to  clear  each  other.  The  respect- 
able people  of  the  South  tried  to  make  it  appear  that 
these  lawless  bands  were  simply  freebooters,  such  as 
generally  infest  a country  for  a time  after  a period  of 
war,  and  had  no  political  meaning  or  purpose  whatso- 
ever ; and  it  is  probably  true  that  the  Klans  never 
went  beyond  county  organization,  any  wider  bond  than 
the  county  organization,  or  Klan,  being  rather  the 
moral  bond  of  a common  purpose  ; but  it  cannot  be  well 
questioned  now  that  they  had  one  purpose  at  least  in 
common,  and  that  that  was  a chief  purpose  with  them 
all,  viz.,  to  terrorize  the  negro  out  of  the  exercise  of  his 


252 


RECONSTRUCTION 


newly-granted  privileges  of  suffrage  and  office-holding, 
and  keep  him  in  his  place  as  a menial. 

The  appearance  of  both  the  Loyal  Leagues  and  the 
Ku-Klux  Klans  in  the  manner  in  which  they  appeared. 
The  natural-  anc*  a^  the  time  w^en  they  appeared,  ought 
ness  ot  these  not  to  cause  any  surprise  to  the  student  of 
history.  Under  the  reconstruction  of  the 
Southern  communities  as  pursued  before  March  of  1867 
it  seemed  as  if  the  freedmen  were  to  be  left  to  the  ten- 
der mercies  of  their  former  masters,  irritated  against 
them  by  the  act  of  the  North  in  emancipating  them, 
and  by  failure  in  war  to  prevent  it.  It  was  entirely 
natural,  not  to  say  praiseworthy,  for  them  to  combine 
for  the  defence  of  their  newly  found  rights,  and  for 
mutual  assistance  in  the  hard  battle  against  want  which 
they  were  now  obliged  to  wage.  And  it  was  no  less 
natural  that  they  should  look  for  the  intellectual  power 
necessary  for  forming  such  combinations  to  the  white 
men  from  the  North  who  had  helped  them  out  of  their 
bondage,  and  had  given  them  food  and  clothes  in  their 
hunger  and  nakedness. 

And,  again,  when  by  the  Reconstruction  Acts  and 
the  restoration  of  martial  law  in  the  South  under  them. 
Congress  turned  the  tables  upon  the  Southern  white 
^eopt^Tand  placecTthe  ignorant  barbarians  in  political 
Control  oftEem, ~ancT made  every  open  attempt  to  resist 
this~controi  a penal  offence,  it  was  also  rather  natural, 
though  not  praiseworthy,  that  men  should  have  bound 
themselves  together  by  secret  oaths  to  do  anything  and 
everything  in  their  power  to  defeat  this  blunder-crime 
against  civilization.  Whether  natural  or  not,  it  always 
happens  when  such  attempts  are  made,  and  it  is  always 
to  be  expected. 

But  to  return  to  the  order  of  the  narrative.  The  for- 
mation of  the  Union  Leagues  in  1867  and  1868  enabled 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  253 


the  negroes  to  vote  in  these  years  for  delegates  to  the 
constitutional  conventions  required  under  the  Recon- 
struction Acts,  and  to  vote  upon  the  ratifica-  The  oppor. 
tion  of  the  constitutions  framed  by  them,  and  ^vent- 
to  participate  in  the  election  for  the  “ State  ” urers- 
officers  and  legislative  members  under  those  constitu- 
tions, with  the  help  and  under  the  direction  of  these  or- 
ganizations, and  to  operate  the  newly  established  “ State  ” 
governments  under  the  same  direction.  This  opened  the 
way  for  the  “ carpet-bag  ” governments  in  the  Southern 
“ States,”  whose  deeds  may  be  now  briefly  narrated. 

The  landing  places  in  this  story  may  be  placed  at  the 
years  1872,  187-4,  and  1876.  The  year  1872  is  the  date 
of  the  national  revolt -against  the  policy  of 

. ^ " Periods  1 n 

the  Washington  government  in  the  affairs  the  history  of 
of  the  reconstructed.  “ States.”  The  year  negronLle- 
1874  is  the  date  when  some  of  the  reconstructed  “ States  ” 
succeeded  in  overthrowing  carpet-bag  and  negro  rule, 
and  the  Democrats  succeeded  in  electing  a majority  of 
members  in  the  lower  House  of  Congress.  And  the 
year  1876  is  the  date  of  the  complete  overthrow  of  that 
rule  and  the  complete  establishment  of  the  “solid  South” 
under  white  Democratic  ^vernhietiff 

Before  all  of  the  Southern  communities  had  been  ad- 
mitted to  representation  in  Congress,  and  before  any  of 
them  except  Tennessee  had  gotten  fairly  The  Act  for 
under  way  with  their  new  “ State  ” govern-  the  enforce- 
ments,  a bill  was  presgu4edin  Congress  to  pro-  new  Amend- 
vide  for  the  enforcement  of  the  Fourteenth 
and  Fifteenth  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  It  will  be  remembered  that  these  Amend- 
ments authorized  the  exercise  of  power  by  the  United 
States  Government  against  “ State”  action  only.  They 
read  : “No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which 
shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  a citizen  of 


254 


RECONSTRUCTION 


the  United  States  ; nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  per- 
son of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of 
law  ; nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the 
equal  protection  of  the  laws  ” ; and  “ the  right  of  cit- 
izens of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or 
abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State  on  account 
of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.” 

It  is  entirely  clear  from  this  language  that,  in  the  en- 
forcement of  these  new  provisions  of  the  Constitution, 
the  United  States  Government  must  direct  its  powers 
against  the  action  of  the  “ States,”  respectively,  through 
their  legislators  and  officials,  and  against  that  only. 
But  in  this  bill  which  became  law  on  the  31st  of 
May,  1870,  Congress  enacted  penalties  not  only  against 
“ State  ” officers  and  agents  for  the  violation  of  the 
Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments,  but  severe 
penalties  against  any  person  within  the  “ States,”  as 
well  as  the  Territories,  who  should  undertake  to  de- 
prive by  unlawful  means  any  other  person  of  his  right 
to  qualify  and  vote  at  any  election,  and  against  any 
person  who  under  color  of  any  law,  statute  or  ordi- 
nance, regulation  or  custom,  should  undertake  to  de- 
prive any  other  person  of  his  civil  rights  and  civil 
equality.  Congress  also,  in  this  Act,  vested  the  juris- 
diction over  such  cases  in  the  United  States  courts  and 
authorized  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  enforce 
their  decisions  by  the  aid  of  the  United  States  army 
and  navy  if  necessary.  Now,  while  it  may  probably  be 
rightly  claimed  that  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  which  reads  : “ Neither  slavery  nor  in- 
voluntary servitude,  except  as  a punishment  for  crime 
whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  shall 
exist  in  the  United  States,  or  in  any  place  subject  to 
their  jurisdiction,”  empowers  Congress  to  make  laws 
protecting  the  civil  rights  and  civil  equality  o#  persons 


“CARPET-BAG”  AND  NEGRO  DOMINATION  255 


within  the  “States  " against  infringement  by  other  per- 
sons, and  to  invest  the  officers  of  the  United  States, 
both  judicial  and  executive,  with  the  power  to  enforce 
these  laws,  since  in  this  Amendment  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  is  not  directed  against 
“ State  ” action  solely,  but  against  any  attempt  made  by 
anybody  to  create  an  involuntary  servitude,  it  cannot 
on  the  other  hand  be  claimed,  with  any  show  of  correct 
interpretation,  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  war- 
rants the  exercise  of  any  such  power  by  the  United 
States  Government,  and  it  is  entirely  out  of  the  ques- 
tion to  claim  that  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  protects 
the  right  of  a person,  within  a State,  to  vote  against 
the  attempt  of  another  person  or  of  other  persons  to  in- 
fringe the  same,  or  even  against  the  “ State  ” itself  to 
do  so,  except  it  be  on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous 
condition  of  servitude. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any 
good  constitutional  lawyer,  at  the  present  time,  that 
Congress  overstepped  its  constitutional  pow-  Critici8m  of 
ers  in  that  part  of  the  Enforcement  Act  of  the  Act. 

May  31st,  1870,  which  related  to  the  exercise  of  the  suf- 
frage, and  trenched  upon  the  reserved  powers  of  the 
“ States.”  The  excuse  for  it  was  that  lawless  bands  of 
white  men,  the  Ku-Klux  Klans  and  the  like,  were  in- 
timidating the  blacks,  and  in  the  approaching  elections 
of  the  autumn  of  1870  would  prevent  them  from  voting. 
But  that  was  a matter  for  the  “ State  ” governments  to 
look  out  for,  and  the  “ State  ” governments  in  the  South 
were,  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  Act,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Tennessee,  in  the  hands  of  the  Republicans. 

Meanwhile  the  new  “State”  governments  had  well 
begun  their  career  of  corruption,  shame  and  vulgarity. 
They  were  plundering  the  treasury,  increasing  the 
taxes,  selling  franchises,  issuing  bonds,  and  celebrating 


256 


RECONSTRUCTION 


high  carnival  everywhere  and  all  the  time.  The  gen- 
tlemen and  political  leaders  of  the  old  school,  and  the 
old  political  class,  of  the  South  looked  on  aghast,  with 
The  corrup-  mingled  feelings  of  bitter  degradation  and 
new  - state”  anger,  and  the  hotspurs  and  desperadoes 
governments.  were  stirred  to  deeds  of  intimidation  and  vio- 
lence. There  is  little  doubt  that  some  negroes  were 
terrified  out  of  exercising  the  sufErage  in  the  election  of 
1870.  Not  yet,  however,  had  enough  of  the  disqualified 
whites  been  amnestied,  or  enough  intimidation  been  ex- 
ercised, or  sufficient  unity  among  the  whites  been  at- 
tained, to  work  the  overthrow  of  “ carpet-bag/’  negro 
rule.  Enough,  however,  was  threatened  to  influence 
the  Republican  Congress  to  proceed  to  more  complete, 
if  not  more  extreme,  measures  for  the  protection  of  the 
negro  in  his  civil  and  political  rights,  and  to  move  the 
President  to  garrison  the  principal  points  in  the  South- 
ern “States”  with  United  States  soldiers. 

The  Congress  passed  the  Act  of  the  28th  of  Febru- 
ary, 1871,  which  so  supplemented  the  Act  of  May  31st, 
The  u ie  ^70,  as  P^ace  the  whole  control  of  the 
mental  en-  registrations  and  elections  when  and  where 

forcement  Act.  -n  ■ < • > -i  i t i i 

.Representatives  to  Congress  should  be  chosen, 
in  the  hands  of  United  States  officers,  the  supervisors, 
and  the  deputy  marshals,  commissioners  and  judges 
of  the  United  States  courts.  It  may  be  claimed  that 
Congress,  under  the  power  to  regulate  the  manner  of 
holding  Congressional  elections  vested  in  it  by  Article 
I.,  section  4,  of  the  Constitution,  was  authorized  to  pass 
this  law,  provided  it  confined  the  action  of  it  to  the 
Congressional  registration  and  election.  But  since  the 
“State”  elections  were  held  at  the  same  time  and  place, 
and  under  the  same  control  and  direction  as  the  Con- 
gressional, it  was  inevitable  that  the  control  of  the 
United  States  officers  would  be  exercised,  either  directly 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  257 


or  indirectly,  over  those  also.  And  this  was  unquestion- 
ably the  chief  purpose  of  the  Act,  so  far  as  its  execution 
in  the  Southern  “ States  ” was  concerned. 

But  this  was  not  yet  enough  in  the  views  of  the  Ad- 
ministration. In  the  two  years  of  his  incumbency  of 
the  Presidential  office,  General  Grant  had  The  Presj. 
fallen  into  the  arms  of  the  radical  Repub-  sage  of  March 
licans,  who  appeared  to  be  in  large  major-  23“’ 1871- 
ity,  and  the  usual  maneuvering  had  begun  for  the 
second  term.  Upon  the  basis  of  information,  which 
turned  out  to  be  very  insufficient  and  unreliable,  the 
President,  on  the  23d  of  March,  1871,  addressed  a 
message  to  Congress,  in  which  he  affirmed  that  life  and 
property  were  insecure  in  some  of  the  “States/’ and  the 
carrying  of  the  mails  and  the  collection  of  the  revenue 
dangerous  ; that  the  power  to  correct  these  evils  was  not 
possessed  by  the  “ State”  governments  ; and  that  it  was 
doubtful  if  the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  under 
existing  laws,  had  the  power  to  meet  these  exigencies ; 
and  asked  Congress  to  pass  such  laws  as  would  enable 
him  to  cope  with  the  situation. 

Congress  answered  this  appeal  with  the  noted,  not  to 
say  notorious,  Ku-Klux  Act  of  April  20tli,  1871,  in 
which  Congress  simply  threw  to  the  winds  The  Ku- 
the  constitutional  distribution  of  powers  be-  f'prii^othf 
tween  the  “States”  and  the  United  States  187L 
Government  in  respect  to  civil  liberty,  crime  and  pun- 
ishment, and  assumed  to  legislate  freely  and  without 
limitation  for  the  preservation  of  civil  and  political 
rights  within  the  “ States,”  and  for  the  punishment  of 
the  infraction  of  the  same  by  individual  persons  con- 
spiring together  for  that  end,  and  for  the  punishment 
of  the  conspiracy  alone,  whether  the  infraction  or  the 
conspiracy  was  executed  upon,  or  directed  against,  of- 
ficers of  the  Government  or  merely  private  persons;  and 


258 


RECONSTRUCTION 


in  which  the  act  of  a combination  of  private  individ- 
uals defying  successfully  the  constituted  authorities  of 
the  United  States  in  a given  “ State/’  or  those  of  the 
“ State  ” concerned,  was  declared  to  be  rebellion  against 
the  United  States,  upon  the  happening,  and  during  the 
continuance,  of  which  the  President  might  suspend  the 
privileges  of  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  within  such  dis- 
tricts as  he,  by  proclamation,  might  designate. 

The  first  part  of  this  Act  was,  unquestionably,  an  un- 
constitutional encroachment  upon  the  powers  of  the 
“States,”  in  so  far  as  it  is  related  to  the  pro- 
BtituUonaiity  tection  of  political  rights  against  infraction, 
or  against  conspiracy  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
fraction, by  private  persons.  The  second  part  was  prob- 
ably within  the  powers  of  Congress,  but  it  was  a most  ex- 
treme use  of  its  powers.  The  “ State  ” governments  in 
the  South  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Republican  “carpet- 
baggers ” and  Republican  negroes,  and  there  is  no  question 
that  the  governors  and  legislatures  of  these  “States” 
were  quick  enough  to  call  in  the  aid  of  United  States 
troops  long  before  it  was  necessary  to  do  so.  Moreover, 
the  militia  of  these  “ States  ” was  composed  almost  en- 
tirely of  negroes,  and  the  whites  were  forbidden  to  keep 
arms.  Under  such  circumstances  this  Act  of  Congress 
empowering  the  President  to  establish  martial  law  upon 
his  own  motion  in  time  of  peace  within  a “ State  ” when 
combinations  of  private  persons  had  successfully  defied, 
in  any  instance,  the  laws  of  the  “State”  was  a very  stiff 
measure,  and  unwarranted  by  the  facts  of  the  situation. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  the  Governor  of  South  Carolina 
had  asked  the  President  to  give  him  United  States 
soldiers  for  the  protection  of  the  “State”  and  its  citi- 
zens against  domestic  violence,  and  the  President  had, 
on  the  24th  of  March  just  preceding  the  passage  of  this 
•'act,  issued  his  proclamation  commanding  the  persons 


“cakpet-bag”  and  negko  domination  259 


composing  the  unlawful  combinations  to  disperse  and 
retire  to  their  abodes  within  twenty  days.  This  was  the 
method  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  for  bringing  the 
military  power  of  the  United  States  to  the  ^terference 
assistance  of  a “ State  ” government  when-  of^thejjmted 
ever  the  “ State  ” government  might  not  be  power  in  the 
able  to  maintain  itself  against  domestic  vio-  south  Caro- 
lence.  There  is  no  doubt  that  General  Scott  1 
of  Ohio,  whilom  officer  in  the  Union  army  and  in 
the  Freedmen’s  Bureau,  the  “ carpet-bag,”  radical  Re- 
publican Governor  of  South  Carolina,  attributed  the 
most  traitorous  character  possible  to  these  combinations, 
exaggerated  the  strength  and  extent  of  them  to  the 
highest  possible  degree,  and  called  for  United  States 
troops  to  suppress  them  at  the  earliest  possible  mo- 
ment. The  most  trustworthy  men  in  South  Carolina 
affirmed  then,  and  have  continued  to  affirm  to  this  day, 
that  those  combinations  had  no  traitorous  intent  what- 
soever, but  were  simply  defensive  in  their  nature  ; that 
the  wholesale  pardoning  of  criminals  by  the  Governor 
and  the  vagrancy  of  the  negroes  had  filled  the  country 
with  desperadoes  who  made  life,  property,  and  female 
honor  insecure  ; and  that,  as  the  militia  was  composed 
of  the  friends  of  these  fiends,  and  the  “State”  govern- 
ment itself  would  not  protect  the  white  citizens,  it  was 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  white  people  to  create  some 
means  of  united  action  in  self-defence  and  take  the  law 
into  their  own  hands.  Statements  to  this  effect  were 
made  by  one  Judge  Carpenter,  a Republican  “State” 
official  of  South  Carolina,  before  the  investigating  com- 
mittee of  Congress  in  1871. 

On  the  3d  day  of  May  following  the  passage  of  the 
Ku-Klux  Act,  the  President  issued  his  general  procla- 
mation warning  the  people  that  the  law  applied  to  the 
whole  country,  but  particularly  exhorting  the  people 


260 


RECONSTRUCTION 


> e o p 1 e of 
South  Caro- 
liua. 


in  the  newly  reconstructed  “ States  ” to  suppress  all 
unlawful  combinations  by  their  own  voluntary  efforts, 
and  declaring,  that  while  he  was  reluctant  to  make  use 
The  Presi-  of  the  extraordinary  powers  conferred  on 
mationofMay  him  by  the  Act,  he  would  nevertheless  do  so 
3d,  1871.  if  if  should  be  found  necessary  for  securing 
all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  in  “ the  peaceful 
enjoyment  of  the  rights  guaranteed  to  them  by  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws.” 

On  the  12th  of  the  following  October,  the  President 
directed  his  proclamation  to  the  people  of  South  Caro- 
The  Presi-  lina  alone,  declaring  that  hostile  combina- 
mTttionPto°cthe  tions  of  persons  making  armed  resistance  to 
the  civil  authorities  of  the  “ State”  and  the 
United  States,  in  their  attempt  to  secure  the 
people  in  their  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Congressional  Act  of  April 
20th,  1871,  too  strong  to  be  overcome  by  these  author- 
ities, existed  in  the  counties  of  York,  Marion,  Chester, 
Laurens,  Newberry,  Fairfield,  Lancaster  and  Chester- 
field, and  commanding  the  members  of  these  combina- 
tions to  deliver  their  arms  and  accoutrements  into  the 
hands  of  the  United  States  officers  in  those  districts,  and 
disperse  to  their  abodes  within  five  days. 

At  the  end  of  the  five  days  of  grace,  the  Presi- 
dent issued  a third  proclamation,  declaring  that  the 
members  of  these  unlawful  combinations 
in  the  places  mentioned  in  his  former  proc- 
lamation had  not  dispersed  and  had  not 
delivered  up  their  arms  and  accoutrements 
as  ordered,  and  suspending  the  privileges  of 
the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  in  the  counties  of 
South  Carolina  above  designated. 

On  the  3d  day  of  the  following  November  a fourth 
proclamation  was  published,  in  which  the  President 


Suspension 
of  the  privi- 
leges of  the 
writof  Habeas 
Corpus  by  the 
President  i n 
certain  coun- 
ties of  South 
Carolina. 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  261 


acknowledged  his  error  in  including  the  county  of  Mar- 
ion in  the  list  of  counties  in  which  the  privileges  of  the 
writ  were  suspended,  but  declared  that  the  situation  in 
Union  county  was  such  as  to  warrant  the  suspension  of 
those  privileges  in  that  county  also,  and  warned  the  in- 
surgents in  that  county  to  deliver  up  their  arms  and 
accoutrements  and  disperse  to  their  abodes  within  five 
days.  This  warning  not  having  been  obeyed,  according 
to  the  views  of  the  President,  a final  proclamation  was 
issued  by  him  on  the  the  10th  day  of  November  sus- 
pending the  privileges  of  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus 
in  Union  county. 

In  execution  of  the  Act  of  April  20th,  and  in  pur- 
suance of  these  proclamations,  the  President  now  sent  a 
strong  force  of  United  States  troops  into  the  The  Kn. 
district  composed  of  the  nine  counties  men-  Klux  tnals- 
tioned,  the  commanders  of  which  arrested  some  five  or 
six  hundred  persons,  kept  them  in  confinement  so  long  as 
they  pleased,  and  procured  the  arraignment  of  some  of 
them  before  the  United  States  courts,  where  a number 
of  them  were  convicted  and  sentenced  to  fine  or  im- 
prisonment or  to  both.  Whether  there  was  any  neces- 
sity for  the  exercise  of  such  harshness  as  this  is  a grave 
question.  It  was  felt  at  the  South  to  be  an  abominable 
outrage,  and  the  Democrats  of  the  North  held  the  same 
opinion.  More  ominous  than  all  this,  however,  was  the 
fact  that  many  leading  Republicans  raised  their  voices 
in  disapproval  of  it,  and  of  the  law  which  authorized  it. 

During  the  year  1872,  in  addition  to  all  this,  there 
came  to  the  knowledge  of  Congress  and  of  the  people 
of  the  North  the  frightful  and  scandalous  corruption 
corruption  of  the  “State”  governments  in  jj^rmnents 
the  South.  It  is  very  difficult  to  get  at  dis-  of  the 
tinct  and  reliable  facts  upon  a subject  which  officials 
undertake  to  cover  up  and  keep  shrouded  in  darkness. 


262 


RECONSTRUCTION 


But  the  record  of  these  doings  in  South  Carolina  was 
something  as  follows.  The  House  of  Representatives, 
the  majority  of  the  members  of  which  were  negroes, 
in  South  and  the  presiding  officer  of  which  was  the 
Carolina.  notorious  F.  J.  Moses,  spent  ninety-five  thou- 
sand dollars  to  refurnish  its  assembly  hall,  where  the 
aristocrats  of  South  Carolina  had  never  spent  over  five 
thousand.  Clocks  costing  six  hundred  dollars  each,  sofas 
two  hundred  dollars  each,  chairs  at  sixty  dollars  each, 
desks  at  a hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  each,  mir- 
rors at  six  hundred  dollars  each,  cuspidors  at  eight  dol- 
lars each — such  were  the  items  of  the  bill.  In  the  four 
years  from  1868  to  1872,  two  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars were  expended  for  furniture  for  the  legislative 
chambers  alone.  Then  came  the  bills  of  supplies,  sun- 
dries and  incidentals,  amounting  in  one  session  to  three 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  thousand  of  it  for  a free  restaurant,  lunch 
counter  and  bar,  at  which  the  members  and  their 
friends  fared  most  royally,  eating,  drinking  and  smoking, 
and  paying  not  a penny  therefor  directly,  nor  indirect- 
ly, since  many,  if  not  most,  of  the  members  of  that  leg- 
islature paid  no  stiver  of  the  taxes.  Then  came  the 
printing  bills,  averaging  more  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  dollars  a year  where  ten  thousand  dollars 
would  have  been  more  than  enough  to  pay  every  legiti- 
mate expense  of  that  kind. 

Then  came  the  sale  of  franchises  of  all  kinds,  and 
the  pledging  of  the  credit  of  the  “ State  ” in  the  form  of 
bonds  to  aid  all  sorts  of  enterprises  pretended  to  be  set 
on  foot,  or  promoted  as  is  now  said,  by  combinations 
of  legislators  or  officials  or  their  friends.  In  1868  the 
“ State  ” debt  was  about  five  millions  of  dollars,  with 
almost  enough  assets  to  pay  it.  In  1872  the  assets  had 
disappeared  and  the  debt  was  more  than  eighteen  mill- 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  263 

ions,  and  nothing  worth  mentioning  to  show  for  it. 
And  all  this  when  the  “State”  taxes  had  been  raised 
from  less  than  a half  million  of  dollars  a year  on  a val- 
uation of  over  four  hundred  millions  to  two  millions  of 
dollars  a year  on  a valuation  of  less  than  two  hundred 
millions  of  property. 

In  Louisiana,  under  the  leadership  of  the  brilliant 
young  adventurer,  Henry  C.  Warmoth  of  Illinois,  the 
financial  history  of  the  “State” was  even  more  in  Louisi- 
scandalous.  During  the  four  years  of  War-  ana' 
moth’s  governorship,  from  1868  to  1872,  the  average  an- 
nual expenditure  of  the  “ State  ” government  was  about 
six  millions  of  dollars,  when,  measured  by  the  previous 
experiences  of  the  “State,”  six  hundred  thousand  dollars 
would  have  been  ample  to  defray  all  legitimate  expenses. 
At  the  beginning  of  Warmoth ’s  administration  the  debt 
of  the  “ State  ” was  between  six  and  seven  millions  of 
dollars,  with  more  than  enough  assets  to  extinguish  it. 
At  the  end  of  the  four  years  of  his  power,  in  1872,  the 
debt  was  nearly  fifty  millions  of  dollars,  the  assets  had 
all  disappeared,  and  there  was  nothing  worth  mention- 
ing to  show  for  the  one  or  the  other. 

In  the  counties  and  municipalities  of  both  “States” 
the  corruption  was  equally  rampant,  shameless,  and  vul- 
gar. It  is  impossible  to  obtain  exact  figures  in  regard  to 
it,  or  to  estimate  with  any  degree  of  exactness,  or  even 
probability,  the  amounts  stolen  and  made  away  with. 
In  the  other  reconstructed  “ States”  where  the  advent- 
urers and  the  negroes  held  sway,  the  “ State  ” govern- 
ments worked  along  the  same  lines,  though  not  to  the 
same  appalling  extent. 

It  was  the  most  soul-sickening  spectacle  that  Ameri- 
cans had  ever  been  called  upon  to  behold.  Every  prin- 
ciple of  the  old  American  polity  was  here  reversed. 
In  place  of  government  by  the  most  intelligent  and 


264 


RECONSTRUCTION 


virtuous  part  of  the  people  for  the  benefit  of  the 
governed,  here  was  government  by  the  most  ignorant 
and  vicious  part  of  the  population  for  the  benefit, 
the  vulgar,  materialistic,  brutal  benefit  of  the  govern- 
ing set. 


It  is  no  subject  of  surprise  or  wonder  that,  con- 
fronted with  these  frightful  results  of  radical  Republi- 
The  revolt  can  P°^cy  and  administration  in  the  South, 
in  the  Repub-  such  Republicans  as  Horace  Greeley,  Charles 

lican  party.  A J 

Francis  Adams,  Lyman  Trumbull,  David 
Davis,  Carl  Schurz,  Gratz  Brown,  Stanley  Matthews, 
George  Hoadly,  J.  R.  Spaulding,  George  W.  Julian, 
Horace  White,  David  A.  Wells,  and  the  like,  turned 
with  disgust  from  the  nauseating  transactions  and  re- 
solved to  do  what  was  in  their  power  to  put  an  end  to 
it  all.  Even  the  radical,  but  honest,  Sumner  gave  his 
adherence  to  the  movement  for  a change  of  the  Adminis- 
tration, as  the  only  way  to  check  the  terrible  corruption 
which  was  creeping  over  the  land.  Sumner,  it  is  true, 
had  been  made  to  feel  personally  the  heavy  hand  of  the 
Administration.  He  had  been  dropped,  the  preceding 
year,  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  at  the  requirement  of  the  Adminis- 
tration, because  he  had  so  strongly  and  successfully 
opposed  the  Santo  Domingo  policy  of  the  President 
and  his  “aide-de-camp.”  But  he  had  opposed  that 
because  he  saw  in  it  corruption,  robbery  and  blood- 
shed. 

The  Liberal  Republicans  were  bolters,  of  course, 
from  the  regular  organization,  and  there  was  no  suffi- 
The  Liberal  cient  opportunity  for  them  to  construct  a 
convention 8of  Party  organization  for  themselves  in  time  for 
18T3-  the  Presidential  election  of  1872.  A general 

call  for  the  leaders  among  them  to  meet  in  mass  conven- 
tion was  issued  from  a “ State”  convention  of  Liberal 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  265 


Republicans  in  Missouri,  and  the  meeting  took  place  at 
Cincinnati  on  the  1st  day  of  May,  1872. 

The  platform  which  it  presented  to  the  people  de- 
manded the  removal,  at  once,  of  all  political  disabilities 
from  the  white  men  of  the  South,  the  main-  Their  plat 
tenance  of  impartial  suffrage  and  of  equal  form- 
civil  rights,  the  cessation  of  military  rule  in  the  South 
and  the  supremacy  of  civil  over  military  power,  the  re- 
form of  the  civil  service,  and  a speedy  return  to  specie 
payments.  Many  of  the  Liberal  Republicans  were  in- 
clined toward  a much  more  moderate  tariff  policy,  but 
out  of  respect  for  the  opinions  of  those  among  them  who 
were  strong  protectionists,  they  abandoned  their  attempt 
to  insert  any  doctrine  on  this  subject  in  the  platform. 
The  protectionists  were  equally  considerate,  and  so  the 
new  party  went  to  the  country  uncommitted  upon  this 
very  important  question. 

It  was  at  first  supposed  that  the  choice  of  the  conven- 
tion for  the  Presidency  would  lay  between  Judge  David 
Davis  of  Illinois,  Charles  Francis  Adams  of  Their  nomi. 
Massachusetts  and  Senator  Lyman  Trumbull  nees- 
of  Illinois.  But  an  unexpected  hostility  of  a very  bit- 
ter nature  soon  developed  between  the  supporters  of 
Davis  and  Adams,  and  rendered  the  nomination  of 
either  of  them  impossible.  This  was  evident  on  the 
first  ballot,  on  which  Mr.  Greeley,  Senator  Trumbull  and 
Gratz  Brown  each  received  mo^e  votes  than  Judge 
Davis,  and  together  more  votes  than  Mr.  Adams.  It 
was  thus  manifest  that  the  Western  men  would  not  take 
Mr.  Adams  and  the  Eastern  men  would  not  take  Judge 
Davis.  The  compromise  was  quickly  made  upon 
Greeley,  and  Gratz  Brown  was  put  with  him  upon  the 
ticket.  It  was  an  unfortunate  selection.  The  country 
did  not  want  any  brilliant  experiments  at  the  moment. 
It  wanted  to  settle  down  to  business.  And  it  was  to  be 


266 


liliCONSTKUCTION 


foreseen  that  it  would  not  be  willing  to  make  a news- 
paper man  President  at  such  a juncture. 

But  stranger  than  the  fact  that  the  prince  of  pro- 
tectionists was  now  running  for  the  presidency  on  a 

Acceptance  platform  which  ignored  protection,  was  the 
Re  pub  i uTn  fact  that  the  Democratic  party,  strength- 
ened  again  by  its  Southern  wing,  now  ac- 
crats.  cepted  the  platform  of  the  Liberal  Republi- 

cans, and  in  convention  at  Baltimore,  in  July  following 
the  Cincinnati  meeting,  nominated  the  Liberal  Repub- 
lican candidates  for  the  presidency  and  the  vice-presi- 
dency as  its  own  candidates.  The  action  of  the  Demo- 
crats, both  as  to  the  platform  and  the  candidates,  was 
almost  unanimous,  and  it  would  be  ungracious  to  express 
any  suspicion  of  its  sincerity.  The  change  of  profession 
on  the  part  of  the  Southern  Democrats  was  very  great 
indeed,  so  great  as  to  be  surprising,  but  they  had  evi- 
dently come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  useless  to  con- 
tend with  the  North  any  longer  against  the  civil  and 
political  rights  of  the  freedmen,  and  that  it  was  best 
for  all  concerned  to  accept  the  inevitable,  and  try 
to  put  themselves  in  the  most  advantageous  position 
possible  for  adjusting  the  relations  of  their  section 
to  it. 

Mr.  Greeley  was,  indeed,  in  strange  company,  but  the 
company  had  come  to  him.  He  had  not  gone  to  them. 

Mr  Greeley  welcome(3  their  support,  and  became  con- 
ocratB*6  Dem'  laminated  by  it  in  the  eyes  of  a vast  majority 
of  the  people  of  the  North.  His  own  great 
ambition  to  be  President  also  caused  him  to  say  and  to 
do  some  imprudent  and  undignified  things.  More  than 
all,  the  time  had  not  yet  come  for  the  great  change.  The 
country  was  fast  approaching  a financial  crisis,  and  any 
shock  would  bring  it  on  with  such  sudden  violence  as  to 
jnake  it  widespread  and  disastrous. 


“carpet-bag'’  and  negro  domination  267 

As  the  last  move,  the  “ straight-out  ” Democrats  bolt- 
ed the  ticket  in  September,  and  at  a con-  Division  in 
vention  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  nomi-  the  Demo- 
nated  Charles  O’Conor  of  New  York  for  Crat*C  ary 
President,  and  John  Quincy  Adams  of  Massachusetts 
for  Vice-President. 

The  September  and  October  elections  in  Vermont, 
Maine,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Indiana  demonstrated 
the  hopelessness  of  the  opposition  to  the  The  Repub- 
radical  Republicans.  They  had  held  their  'aicn“ 
convention  in  Philadelphia  in  the  early  part  neee- 
of  June,  had  issued  a platform  which  simply  asserted  the 
righteousness  of  what  they  had  done  and  the  determi- 
nation to  persist  in  the  course  heretofore  followed,  and 
had  nominated  General  Grant  for  re-election  to  the 
presidency  with  Senator  Henry  Wilson,  of  Massachu- 
setts, for  his  running  mate. 

In  the  election,  they  swept  all  of  the  Northern 
“ States  ” by  heavy  popular  majorities,  and  with  their 
election  machinery  in  the  Southern  “ States  ” The  Repub. 
they  captured  a majority  of  these  also.  In  1,can  trminph- 
those  Southern  “States”  which  were  free  from  carpet- 
bag negro  rule  the  Greeley  electors  were  chosen,  that  is 
in  Maryland,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Tennessee,  Georgia 
and  Texas.  In  the  North,  a very  large  number  of  Dem- 
ocrats had  failed  to  go  to  the  polls.  They  could  hardly 
have  elected  Greeley,  however,  had  they  all  voted  for 
him.  They  were  pretty  sure  of  this,  and  they  took  the 
opportunity  of  administering  a rebuke  to  their  chiefs 
for  not  nominating  candidates  who  were  members  of 
their  own  party. 

While  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  re-election  of  Gen- 
eral Grant,  and  the  election  of  a strong  Republican 
majority  in  Congress,  quieted  the  mind  of  the  North, 
there  is  also  no  doubt  that  they  caused  great  discour- 


268 


RECONSTRUCTION 


agement  among  the  white  people  of  the  South,  since 
they  operated  as  an  encouragement  to  the  adventurers 
The  effect  and  the  negroes  to  persevere  in  their  cor- 
oftufetR^uPbh  rnPt  an(l  conscienceless  management  of  the 
licans.  “ State  ” governments. 

In  several  of  the  reconstructed  “ States  ” the  Demo- 
crats had  made  strong  efforts  to  secure  control  of  the 
“ State  ” governments.  The  Amnesty  Act  of  May  22d, 
1872,  had  removed  the  disqualifications  of  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  from  all  the  Southern  leaders,  ex- 
cept such  as  had  been  members  of  the  Thirty-sixth  and 
Thirty-seventh  Congresses,  or  had  held  judicial,  mili- 
tary, naval,  or  diplomatic  office  under  the  United  States, 
or  had  been  heads  of  departments  in  ministerial  office. 
A large  number  of  these  leaders  had  thus  been  placed 
in  a position  to  participate  as  candidates  for  office  and 
legislative  position  in  the  election,  and  to  aid  greatly  in 
the  work  of  rescuing  their  “ States  ” from  negro  Repub- 
lican rule.  In  Alabama  and  Louisiana  they  had  very 
nearly  succeeded.  In  Alabama  they  had  elected  the 
Governor  and  a majority  of  the  members  to  the  lower 
house  of  the  legislature  in  the  autumn  of  1870,  and  in 
1872  they  claimed  to  have  elected  a majority  of  the  mem- 
bers to  both  houses. 

In  Alabama,  the  Democratic  members-elect  of  the 
legislature  convened  in  the  capitol,  and  the  Republican 
Events  in  members-elect  in  the  court-house.  The 
Alabama.  Democratic  Governor,  Lindsay,  recognized 
the  Democratic  legislature,  and  the  Democratic  legislat- 
ure then  canvassed  the  votes  for  Governor  and  declared 
the  Republican  candidate,  D.  P.  Lewis,  elected.  Lewis 
then  recognized  the  Republican  legislature,  and  tele- 
graphed to  Opelika  for  United  States  soldiers  to  come 
to  Montgomery.  They  arrived  by  the  next  train,  and, 
backed  by  these,  the  Governor  and  his  friends,  in  and 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  269 

out  of  the  legislature,  succeeded  in  constituting  a legis- 
lature with  a small  Republican  majority  in  both  houses  ; 
and  the  whites  fell  back  again  under  black  rule,  dis- 
couraged and  exhausted  by  the  exertions  and  the  failure 
to  escape  from  it. 

In  Louisiana  the  events  were  far  more  extraordinary 
and  violent.  Warmoth’s  rule  was  approaching  its  end, 
and  his  Republican  enemies,  what  was  known  Events  in 
as  the  Custom  House  faction,  the  United  Lom8iaua- 
States  officials,  were  fairly  panting  to  get  at  him.  To 
foil  them,  he  went  over  to  the  Democrats  and  promised 
to  give  them  a fair  chance  to  elect  their  candidate  for 
Governor  and  their  candidates  for  the  legislature.  For 
this  he  expected  protection  from  them  against  the  Cus- 
tom House  gang,  to  whom  he  had  denied  what  they  had 
conceived  to  be  their  proper  share  of  the  public  plunder, 
and  who,  if  in  possession  of  the  “ State  ” government, 
would  make  him  answer  for  it.  Warmoth  supposed  he 
was  able  with  his  election  machinery  to  give  the  “ State  ” 
to  the  Democrats  whether  the  voters  should  do  so  or 
not.  The  election  took  place  at  the  same  time  as  the 
presidential  election,  November  4th,  1872.  The  re- 
turns were  sent  by  the  supervisors  and  commissioners  of 
elections  to  Warmoth,  and  he  delivered  them  to  his 
Returning  Board,  consisting  of  himself,  the  Secretary 
of  State,  F.  J.  Herron,  and  one  John  Lynch  ; the  other 
two  members  of  the  Board  as  constituted  by  the  legis- 
lature, by  the  act  of  1870,  viz.,  Lieutenant-Governor 
Pinchback  and  one  Anderson,  being  disqualified  from 
serving,  since  both  of  them  were  candidates  for  office  at 
this  election.  The  Governor  had  his  suspicions  aroused 
about  the  loyalty  of  both  Herron  and  Lynch  to  him  be- 
fore the  count  took  place,  and  having  the  legal  power  to 
remove  Herron,  he  did  so  at  once  and  appointed  one 
John  Wharton,  a friend  upon  whom  he  could  rely,  in 


270 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Herron’s  place.  Lynch  now  refused  to  act  with  them, 
and  Herron  denied  the  power  of  the  Governor  to  dis- 
miss him  from  the  Secretaryship  of  State,  and  from  his 
ex  officio  membership  in  the  Returning  Board.  Warmoth 
and  Wharton  proceeded,  however,  to  supply  the  place 
of  Lynch,  as  they  might  do  under  the  law,  and  Herron 
and  Lynch  proceeded  to  supply  the  place  of  Warmoth. 

The  Warmoth  Board  had  the  returns,  and  it  was  also 
generally  felt  that  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Gov- 
ernor, John  McEnery,  had  been  chosen  by  the  voters. 
Moreover,  the  right  of  Herron  to  retain  the  office  of 
Secretary  of  State  was  immediately  brought  before  the 
supreme  court  of  the  “ State,”  and  the  court  gave  its  de- 
cision against  Herron’s  contention.  It  seemed  now  cer- 
tain that  the  Warmoth  Returning  Board  would  declare 
McEnery  to  have  been  elected  Governor.  But  the  Re- 
publican candidate,  W.  P.  Kellogg,  then  a Senator  from 
Louisiana  in  Congress,  was  watchful  and  resourceful. 
He  secured  from  United  States  District  Judge  Durell 
an  injunction  which  forbade  the  Warmoth  Board  to  do 
anything  except  in  the  presence  of  the  Lynch  Board,  and 
forbade  McEnery  from  claiming  his  election  under  the 
returns  which  might  be  given  out  by  the  Warmoth  Board. 

Warmoth  met  this  by  a move  which  was  equally  a 
coup  de  surprise.  The  legislature  had  at  its  last  ses- 
warmoth  sion  passed  a law  vesting  the  power  to  select 
and  Dureii.  the  members  of  the  Returning  Board  in  the 
senate.  The  Governor  had  not  signed  this  bill,  and 
probably  never  intended  to  sign  it,  since  it  proposed  to 
take  the  control  of  the  Board  out  of  his  hands,  but  it  now 
seemed  to  furnish  him  a way  of  escape  from  Durell’s  or- 
der. He  hastily  signed  the  bill  and  promulgated  it  as 
law,  and  as  the  senate  was  not  in  session,  proceeded  to 
appoint  the  members  of  the  new  Board  himself,  under  the 
power  of  the  Governor  to  make  temporary  appointments 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  271 

to  office  when  the  senate  was  not  in  session.  He  ap- 
pointed one  Dr.  Feriet  chairman  of  the  Board,  and  put 
the  election  returns  in  his  hands.  This  Board  declared 
that  McEnery  had  been  elected  Governor  and  that  the 
Greeley  electors  had  been  chosen.  The  Governor  pub- 
lished these  decisions  officially  on  the  5th  day  of  Decem- 
ber, and  the  affair  seemed  to  have  been  closed.  But  to  the 
surprise  of  everyone  concerned,  and  of  the  whole  coun- 
try, in  the  middle  of  the  night  following,  Judge  Durell 
issued  an  order  to  the  United  States  Marshal,  S.  B. 
Packard,  to  take  possession  of  the  capitol  and  hold 
it  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Judge  against  all  unlawful 
bodies  attempting  to  convene  therein.  The  Judge 
claimed  that  Warmoth  had  committed  a contempt 
against  his  court  in  the  Returning  Board  proceeding, 
and  he  declared  that  the  Lynch  Board  was  the  legal 
body.  His  order  furthermore  required  the  commander 
of  the  United  States  troops  to  furnish  a detachment  of 
soldiers  to  sustain  the  United  States  marshal  in  taking 
possession  of  the  capitol,  and  in  enforcing  the  Lynch 
Board’s  canvass  and  decision. 

A more  palpable  outrage  upon  the  lawful  powers  of  a 
“ State  ” could  hardly  have  been  conceived.  The  Judge 
had  not  a scintilla  of  authority  upon  which  to  rest  his 
proceeding.  It  is  claimed  that  he  was  drunk  when  he 
made  the  order.  But  this  can  hardly  have  been  true,  that 
is  he  could  not  have  been  any  more  than  ordinarily 
drunk,  since  the  order  was  not  withdrawn  when  he  be- 
came ostensibly  sober  again,  but  was  made  the  basis  of  a 
proceeding  which  lasted  through  many  days,  and  the  re- 
sults of  which  were  the  counting  in  of  Kellogg  and  of  a 
Republican  legislature  by  the  Lynch  Board,  the  imme- 
diate instalment  of  the  Lynch  Board  legislature,  the  al- 
most immediate  impeachment  of  Warmoth  by  it  and  his 
removal  from  the  governorship,  the  installation  of  the 


272 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Lieutenant-Governor,  the  negro  Pinchback,  in  his  seat, 
the  recognition  of  the  Lynch  Board  legislature  and  of 
Pinchback  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  the 
lawful  legislature  and  executive  of  Louisiana,  and  the 
inauguration  of  Kellogg  as  Governor  at  the  end  of  the 
Warmoth-Pinchback  term.  If  this  was  all  the  work 
of  a drunken  spree,  it  must  have  been  a very  long  one, 
and  there  must  have  been  many  participants  in  it  be- 
sides the  Judge. 

The  Warmoth  Board  Governor  and  legislature  un- 
dertook to  set  up  government  also,  sustained  as  they 
undoubtedly  were  both  by  the  law,  and  by  public  opinion 
in  Louisiana  and  probably  throughout  the  country,  and 
partially  organized  a militia  force.  It  was  the  fighting 
between  this  militia  and  the  metropolitan  police  in  the 
streets  of  New  Orleans  which  occasioned  the  suppression 
of  the  McEnery  government  at  last  by  United  States 
soldiers. 

For  two  years  more  now  the  government  of  the  ad- 
venturers, based  on  negro  support,  continued  in  the 
The  down-  “ States  ” south  of  the  Tennessee  line,  except 
beatween°i8T2  Georgia.  Property  was  decreasing  in  amount 
and  i8T4.  and  value  ; taxes  were  being  doubled  ; and  new 
bond  issues  were  being  made,  and  the  bonds  sold  at  a 
great  reduction  upon  their  face  value,  or  stolen  outright. 
But  the  day  of  deliverance  was  coming.  The  consci- 
ence of  the  Nation  had  been  aroused,  and  in  the  elec- 
T h e elec-  ti°ns  of  1874  the  voters  throughout  the  coun- 
tions of  1874.  try  delivered  a stunning  rebuke  to  the  party 
responsible  for  the  hideous  situation  in  the  South.  It 
is  true  that  other  issues  were  influential  in  producing 
the  bouleversement  of  1874,  especially  the  financial  panic 
of  1873  and  the  corruption  in  the  circles  of  the  Federal 
Administration  itself,  the  Whiskey  ring  frauds,  and 
the  Indian  agent  peculations.  We  must  also  remem- 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  273 

ber  that  at  this  very  election  several  of  the  Southern 
“ States  ” relieved  themselves  of  Republican  rule  and 
sent  solid,  or  almost  solid,  Democratic  delegations  to 
Congress.  But  with  all  proper  allowance  for  the  effect 
of  these  things,  there  still  remained,  as  the  chief  cause 
of  the  change  of  view  in  the  North,  the  revolt  of  the 
popular  conscience  against  being  any  longer  dragooned 
into  the  support  of  the  policy  of  the  Republican  party 
in  the  Southern  “ States/’  and  the  popular  disgust  at 
the  everlasting  “waving  of  the  bloody  shirt”  whenever 
the  dominance  of  that  party  seemed  anywhere  threatened. 
At  any  rate,  it  was  a clean  sweep,  and  from  a majority 
of  two-thirds  in  the  Forty-third  Congress,  the  Republi- 
cans found  themselves  in  possession  of  only  about  one- 
third  of  the  seats  in  the  Lower  House  of  the  Forty- 
fourth  Congress. 

Moreover,  three  more  of  the  Southern  “States”  freed 
themselves,  at  this  time,  from  “ Black  Republican  ” rule. 
In  Alabama,  the  respectable  whites  had  now  The  change 
about  all  gone  into  the  Democratic  ranks,  Ar^nsas'and 
and  with  the  election  of  George  S.  Houston  Texa8- 
as  Governor,  and  a legislature  in  large  majority  Demo- 
cratic, the  “ State  ” won  at  last  its  self-government. 
Likewise  by  a similar  fusion  of  all  the  respectable  whites 
into  the  Democratic  party,  A.  H.  Garland  was  elected 
Governor  of  Arkansas  and  a legislature  with  a large 
Democratic  majority  was  chosen,  and  from  that  time 
forward  the  “State”  government  has  been  in  the  hands 
of  its  own  citizens.  The  same  result  was  reached  in 
Texas,  where  the  union  of  the  respectables  of  all  parties 
upon  the  Democratic  candidates  elected  Richard  Coke 
Governor  and  a legislature  of  reputable  white  men. 

Even  South  Carolina  very  nearly  escaped  her  thral- 
dom, and  came  near  to  electing  a white  Democrat  Gov- 
ernor. As  it  was,  she  got  a moderate  Republican  for 


274 


KECONSTKUCTION 


in  South  Caro-  “State 
lina  in  X8T4. 


Governor,  Mr.  D.  H.  Chamberlain,  a Northerner  indeed, 
but  a man  of  great  ability  and  undoubted  honesty,  who 
The  status  everythiQg  in  his  power  to  redeem  the 
from  the  miserable  condition  into 
which  the  errors  and  crimes  of  his  prede- 
cessors had  brought  it.  He  naturally  soon  found  him- 
self in  conflict  with  some  of  the  leaders  of  his  own  party 
in  the  “ State”  and  at  Washington,  and  was  greatly 
impeded  by  them  in  carrying  out  his  own  purposes.  At 
last,  in  1875,  the  break  between  him  and  the  members 
of  his  party  in  the  legislature  was  completed  by  the 
act  of  the  legislature  in  electing  the  notorious  F.  J. 
Moses,  Jr.,  and  the  negro,  W.  J.  Whipper,  “State” 
judges.  The  Governor  was  so  incensed  at  this  act  of 
Governor  downright  depravity  that  he  refused  to  com- 
chamberiain.  mjssion  the  two  judges-elect  to  the  judicial 
offices  to  which  they  had  been  chosen.  Whipper 
threatened  to  use  force  to  gain  possession  of  the  office, 
and  the  Governor  issued  his  proclamation  threatening 
to  arrest  every  person  who  should  give  Whipper  any 
aid  or  support  in  this  attempt  as  disturbers  of  the  pub- 
lic peace.  The  Governor  triumphed  and  protected  the 
“State  ” against  the  terrible  degradation  which  impended 
over  it,  but  his  brave  attitude  ruined  him  with  the 
radical  and  base  elements  of  his  party. 

The  day  of  complete  deliverance  was  now,  however, 
rapidly  approaching.  The  election  of  1875  in  Mississippi 
, . showed  that  the  domination  of  the  “Black 

complete  de-  Republicans”  in  the  Southern  “ State” gov- 
ernments could  last  no  longer.  Here  was  a 
“ State  ” in  which  the  negro  population  exceeded  the 
white  very  largely,  but  in  the  election  of  1875  the  whites 
finally  got  together  and  what  they  could  not  accomplish 
in  one  way  they  did  in  another.  The  whites  organized 
themselves  into  rifle  clubs,  attended  the  Republican 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  275 

meetings  and  insisted  upon  a division  of  the  time  be- 
tween their  own  speakers  and  the  Republican  speakers 
at  these  meetings.  A great  deal  of  fraud 

® ^ ip  g status 

and  intimidation  was  practised,  and  some  in  Mississippi 
violence  was  exercised,  but  always  in  such  a in  1875' 
manner  as  not  to  provoke  the  calling  of  United  States 
troops  to  the  scene.  The  immediate  occasion  of  these 
desperate  movements  on  the  part  of  the  whites  was  the 
treatment  accorded  the  petition  made  by  the  taxpayers’ 
convention  of  the  “State”  to  the  legislature  for  relief 
from  the  intolerable  burdens  under  which  the  taxpayers 
were  suffering.  This  petition  of  the  4th  of  January, 
1875,  recited  that  between  the  years  1809  and  1874  the 
rate  of  “ State  ” taxation  had  been  raised  from  ten 
cents  on  the  hundred  dollars  of  assessed  value  of  lands 
to  one  dollar  and  forty  cents,  and  that  in  many  cases 
the  increase  in  the  rate  of  the  county  levies  had  been 
even  greater,  so  that  the  whole  product  of  the  soil  was 
hardly  sufficient  to  pay  the  taxes.  The  negro  legislature 
laughed  at  these  representations,  and  did  not  deign  to 
consider  them,  much  less  to  do  anything  to  satisfy  the 
frightful  grievances  complained  of.  It  was  now  a 
choice  between  complete  destruction  and  the  em- 
ployment of  any  means  necessary  to  escape  from  it. 
There  was  no  use  in  talking  about  observing  the  letter 
of  the  law  at  such  a moment.  The  law  was  iniquitous 
and  it  was  rapidly  destroying  all  that  was  left  of  pros- 
perity, civilization,  morality  and  decency.  If  it  would 
not  yield,  it  had  to  be  broken.  The  movement  was 
successful.  It  was  really  a revolution.  It  resulted  in 
the  election  of  a Democratic  legislature  in  November 
of  1875,  the  disruption  of  the  Republican  party  in 
the  “ State,”  the  framing  of  an  impeachment  against 
the  Republican  Governor,  Ames,  his  resignation  and 
departure  from  the  “State,”  and  the  accession  of  the 


276 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Democrat,  John  M.  Stone,  to  the  gubernatorial  of- 
fice. 

It  was  thus  that  the  eventful  year  1876  was  intro- 
duced, and  it  was  an  earnest  of  the  relief  which  was  now 
to  come  to  the  remaining  “ States  ” of  the  South  suffer- 
ing under  the  rule  of  the  adventurers  and  their  negro 
allies. 

While  the  Republican  party  had  step  by  step,  and  al- 
most unconsciously,  involved  itself  in  the  support  of 
Fiat  money  dishonest  and  oppressive  government  at  the 
and  the  re-  South,  it  was,  on  the  other  hand,  fighting 
specie  pay-  the  battle  for  financial  honesty  in  the  Nation 
at  large  against  the  fiat  money  heresy  and 
the  schemes  of  repudiation  invented  and  supported  by 
the  national  Democracy.  Its  Congressional  majority 
had  passed  the  Refunding  Acts  of  July  14th,  1870,  and 
January  20th,  1871,  for  refunding  the  debt  of  the 
United  States  in  coin  bonds  bearing  five,  four  and  one- 
half  and  four  per  centum  interest.  These  acts  authorized 
the  issue  of  eighteen  hundred  millions  of  dollars  in  these 
new  bonds,  five  hundred  millions  payable  after  ten  years, 
and  bearing  five  per  centum  interest,  three  hundred  mill- 
ions payable  after  fifteen  years  and  bearing  four  and 
one-half  per  centum  interest,  and  one  thousand  millions 
payable  after  thirty  years  and  bearing  four  per  centum  in- 
terest. By  the  Act  of  March  18th,  1869,  the  Republi- 
can Congress  had  declared  that  all  of  the  obligations  of 
the  United  States  should  be  paid  in  coin  or  its  equiva- 
lent, unless  otherwise  specifically  stipulated  in  the  law 
authorizing  the  obligation.  This  Act  was  made  applica- 
ble to  past,  as  well  as  future,  obligations.  It  rested  on 
the  principle  that  debts  must  be  paid  in  the  best  money 
of  the  country  unless  otherwise  agreed  to  in  the  con- 
tract. This  is,  of  course,  the  sound  principle  both  of 
morals  and  finance,  and  no  act  of  Congress  pronouncing 


‘carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  277 


it  would  have  been  considered  necessary,  except  for  the 
great  fact  that  the  Democratic  party,  in  its  campaign  of 
1868,  had  espoused  the  opposite  doctrine  and  had  fought 
the  campaign  largely  under  that  issue.  The  Act,  how- 
ever, might  of  course  be  repealed,  and  in  that  case  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  principal  sum  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  national  indebtedness  should  be  paid  in 
coin  would  be  again  opened,  since  the  laws  authorizing 
the  incurring  of  these  obligations  provided  only  for 
the  payment  of  the  interest  upon  them  in  coin.  It  was 
in  order  to  forestall  the  possibility  of  a repeal  of  the 
Act  of  March  18th,  1869,  as  well  as  in  order  to  make  a 
large  saving  in  the  interest  charge,  that  these  Refund- 
ing Acts  were  passed. 

After  the  panic  of  1873  had  resulted  in  such  a depres- 
sion of  business  and  depreciation  of  values  throughout 
the  country  as  to  create  greater  discontent  with  the  ex- 
isting political  management,  and  this  discontent  had 
manifested  itself  so  distinctly  in  the  elections  of  1874, 
announcing  to  the  Republican  party  that  after  March 
5th,  1875,  a Democratic  majority  would  prevail  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  it  was  manifest  to  the  Repub- 
lican leaders,  in  Congress  and  out  of  Congress,  that  if  any- 
thing was  to  be  done  in  regard  to  the  resumption  of  spe- 
cie payment,  anything  for  bringing  the  paper  currency 
of  the  United  States  up  to  a coin  value,  it  must  be  done 
speedily,  and  on  the  21st  of  December,  1874,  Mr.  Sher- 
man reported  a bill  from  the  Finance  Committee  to 
the  Senate  for  this  purpose,  which  became  a law  on  the 
14th  day  of  January  following,  and  which  provided  for 
the  redemption  of  the  fractional  currency  with  silver 
coins  of  the  value  of  ten,  twenty-five  and  fifty  cents,  so 
rapidly  as  these  coins  could  be  minted  ; abolished  the 
charge  of  one-fifth  of  one  per  centum  on  the  coinage  of 
gold,  making  the  coinage  of  gold  at  the  mints  of  the 


278 


RECONSTRUCTION 


United  States  free  ; repealed  the  law  limiting  the  ag- 
gregate amount  of  the  circulating  notes  of  the  national 
banking  associations,  and  the  law  for  the  withdrawal  of 
national-bank  currency  from,  and  its  redistribution 
among,  the  several  “ States  ” and  Territories  ; ordered 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  issuing  new  circulat- 
ing notes  to  the  national  banking  associations  to  retire 
United  States  legal  tender  notes  to  the  amount  of  eighty 
per  centum  of  such  issues,  until  the  United  States  legal 
tender  notes  should  be  reduced  to  three  hundred  mill- 
ions of  dollars,  and  after  January  1st,  1879,  to  redeem 
these  legal  tender  notes  in  coin  on  their  presentation  at 
the  office  of  the  Assistant  Treasurer  of  the  United  States 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  sums  of  not  less  than  fifty 
dollars ; and,  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
to  do  this,  authorized  him  to  use  any  unappropriated 
surplus  revenue  which  might  be,  from  time  to  time, 
in  the  Treasury,  and  to  sell  bonds  of  the  description 
mentioned  in  the  Act  of  July  14th,  1870,  in  such 
amounts  as  he  should  find  necessary  to  accomplish  the 
purpose. 

It  is  true  that  the  Republican  majority  in  Congress 
had  not  taken  this  high  ground  concerning  the  public 
credit  and  sound  money  without  some  wavering.  The 
President  himself  had  become  frightened  by  the  panic 
of  the  autumn  of  1873,  and  in  his  annual  message  of 
December  1st  following  had  made  recommendations 
that  might  be  regarded  as  favorable  to  an  inflation  of 
the  existing  body  of  paper  money.  His  party  friends 
in  Congress  very  soon  produced  a bill  which,  among 
other  things,  provided  for  the  increase  of  the  United 
States  notes  and  the  national  bank  notes  to  the  extent 
of  about  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  and  passed  it. 
But  the  President  had  either  thought  the  question  out 
more  fully,  or  had  been  in  receipt  of  some  very  sound 


“carpet-bag”  and  negro  domination  279 


advice,  after  he  wrote  the  message  of  December  1st, 
1873.  On  the  22d  of  April,  1874,  he  sent  a special 
message  to  Congress  vetoing  the  bill.  This  Thg  infla 
stand  of  the  President  recalled  the  Repub-  tion  bill  of 

..  . „ „ • . . 1874  and  the 

licans  m Congress  Irom  their  economic  aber-  veto  of  it  by 

,.  , i,i  • , i the  President. 

rations,  and  set  them  again  upon  the  course 
which  led  to  the  Act  of  the  14th  of  January,  1875. 

While  at  the  moment  this  law  for  the  resumption  of 
specie  payments  in  the  short  period  of  four  years,  or 
rather  less,  from  the  time  of  its  enactment  seemed  a 
rather  hazardous,  not  to  say  desperate,  move  on  the 
part  of  the  Republicans,  it  soon  became  manifest  that 
they  could  have  done  nothing  so  calculated  to  strength- 
en the  hold  of  the  party  upon  the  solid  and  conserva- 
tive men  of  the  country  as  just  this  very  thing.  Many 
of  these  men  who  had  usually  voted  with  the  Repub- 
licans disapproved  of  the  Southern  policy  of  the  party, 
and  were  on  the  point  of  turning  against  it.  With  the 
Resumption  Act  the  financial  policy  of  the  Republican 
party,  and  of  the  country,  was  dragged  to  the  front, 
and  the  Southern  policy  was  forced  backward,  and 
made  to  constitute  a less  prominent  issue  in  the  cam- 
paign of  1876.  This  was  not  only  wise  party  manage- 
ment, but  it  was  also  a fortunate  thing  for  the  entire 
country.  The  country  was  not  yet  in  a position  to  en- 
dure a Democratic  administration,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  was  surfeited  with  reconstruction  Republican 
administrations.  It  wanted  a sound  money  Republi- 
can administration,  which  would  devote  itself  to  the 
development  of  the  economic  interests  of  the  whole 
people,  and  would  let  the  “ State  ” governments  in  the 
South  have  a chance  to  work  out  their  own  salvation. 
And  this  was  just  what  it  got  in  the  election  of  1876, 
and  in  the  administration  of  President  Rutherford  B. 
Hayes. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS 
CONSEQUENCES 

The  Republican  National  Convention  of  1876-  The  Platform — The 
Nominees — The  National  Democratic  Convention  of  1876 — 
The  Platform— The  Nominees— The  Campaign  and  the  Elec- 
tion— The  Count  and  the  Twenty-second  Joint  Rule — Views 
in  Regard  to  the  Power  to  Count  the  Electoral  Vote — The  Re- 
publicans in  Advantage  in  the  Count  of  the  Vote — The  Elec- 
toral Commission  Bill — The  Passage  of  the  Bill — The  Mem- 
bers of  the  Commission — The  Fifth  Justice — Justice  David 
Davis — The  Counting  of  the  Electoral  Vote  by  Congress — The 
Double  Returns  from  South  Carolina,  Florida,  Louisiana  and 
Oregon — The  Counsel  before  the  Commission — The  Repub- 
lican Position— The  Democratic  Position — The  Decisions  of 
the  Commission — Mr.  Hayes  Declared  President — The  Truth 
in  Regard  to  the  Election — Mr.  Hayes’s  Southern  Policy — The 
Result  of  His  Policy — Reconciliation  between  the  North  and 
the  South. 

When  the  managers  of  the  Republican  party  met  in 
National  nominating  convention  at  Cincinnati,  on  the 
The  Repub-  14th  of  June,  1876,  they  rightly  divined  the 
Conventionno£  policy  which  alone  could  lead  them  to  vic- 
1876-  tory  in  the  elections  of  the  following  au- 

tumn. They  constructed  their  platform  in  such  a way 
as  to  place  the  financial  issue  in  the  foreground,  with 
The  plat-  the  pledges  of  the  party  to  uphold  the  public 
form.  credit,  and  to  place  the  currency  of  the 

country  on  a coin  basis.  They  also  declared  the  pacifica- 
tion of  the  South  to  be  a sacred  duty,  and  pledged  the 

280 


ELECTION  OE  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  281 

party  to  a thoroughgoing  reform  of  the  civil  service. 
Connected  therewith  were,  of  course,  the  usual  plati- 
tudes about  the  civil  and  political  liberty  and  equality 
of  every  American  citizen  and  of  everybody  else. 

While  there  was  no  name  before  the  convention  com- 
manding universal  popular  assent,  as  had  been  the 
case  at  the  second  nomination  of  Lincoln  The  nomi. 
and  the  two  nominations  of  Grant,  still  there  nees- 
was  one  which,  in  so  far  as  its  possessor  was  known,  in- 
spired strong,  if  not  enthusiastic,  confidence.  It  was 
not  pronounced  in  the  first  balloting  so  loudly  as  that 
of  the  brilliant  Blaine,  or  the  stolid  Morton,  or  the 
arrogant  Conkling,  but,  as  the  voting  continued,  more 
and  more  of  the  ballots  contained  it,  and  at  last  on  the 
seventh  round,  it  received  a majority  of  the  votes.  The 
choice  was  a wise  one.  Mr.  Hayes  had  been  a good  sol- 
dier, a valuable  member  of  the  National  legislature,  and 
an  excellent  Governor  of  his  native  “ State/5  in  which 
office  he  was  serving  for  a third  term  at  the  time  of  his 
nomination  for  the  Presidency.  He  was  a man  of  sound 
sense,  unimpeachable  character,  generous  feeling,  pleas- 
ing manners,  and  resolute  will.  There  was  a tendency 
at  first  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  some  of  the  dis- 
appointed aspirants  to  belittle  his  qualities,  and  to 
represent  him  as  a weak  man,  and  his  conciliatory 
methods  were  often  mistaken  for  weakness  by  those 
who  were  not  his  rivals  or  his  enemies,  or  the  friends  of 
his  rivals  or  his  enemies ; but  as  history  sets  his  char- 
acter and  his  work  in  their  proper  perspective  they  both 
stand  out  more  and  more  strongly,  and  make  his  Admin- 
istration appear  to  be  one  of  the  most  important  in  Amer- 
ican annals.  Especially  does  it  honor  him  for  his  ear- 
nest, faithful  and  successful  battle  for  sound  money  and 
the  maintenance  of  the  public  faith,  and  for  his  deter- 
mination to  put  an  end  to  the  support  by  Federal 


282 


RECONSTRUCTION 


bayonets  of  the  “ carpet-bag,”  negro  “ State”  govern- 
ments of  the  South. 

A fortnight  after  the  nomination  by  the  Republican 
convention  of  Rutherford  B.  Hayes  for  President  and 
The  National  William  A.  Wheeler  for  Vice-President,  the 
convenuonof  Democratic  leaders  met  at  St.  Louis  for  the 
is76.  purpose  of  issuing  the  campaign  creed  of 

their  party  and  choosing  its  candidate  for  the  chief 
The  plat-  magistracy  of  the  Nation.  The  platform  put 
form.  forward  by  them  was  remarkable  for  its 

length,  its  language  of  fierce  vituperation,  and  its  loud 
calls  for  reform.  Its  specific  propositions  were  the  re- 
duction of  the  duties  on  foreign  imports  to  a revenue 
basis,  and  the  repeal  of  the  Resumption  Act  of  1875,  on 
the  strange  ground  that  it  obstructed  the  return  to  specie 
payments. 

Their  candidate  had  virtually  been  determined  on 
before  they  met.  It  could  be  nobody  else  than  the  pop- 
The  nomi-  n^ar  Governor  of  New  York,  Samuel  J.  Til- 
nees-  den,  shrewd  in  business,  rich,  the  most  suc- 

cessful political  manager  New  York  had  produced  since 
Van  Buren,  greatly  heralded  as  the  very  archpriest  of 
reform,  the  hope  of  the  young  men  in  politics  ; but  not 
a statesman  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  nor  a 
demagogue  in  the  lowest  sense  of  that  word — a genuine 
American  politician  of  the  first  order.  He  was  nomi- 
nated on  the  second  ballot,  and  by  a unanimous  vote. 
With  him  was  placed  as  candidate  for  the  second  place 
the  popular  Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana.  It  was  a strong 
ticket,  and  it  was  generally  believed  that  it  would  win. 
Mr.  Tilden  himself  felt  sure  of  the  electoral  votes  of  all 
the  Southern  “States”  and  of  New  York,  Indiana, New 
Jersey  and  Connecticut. 

Mr.  Tilden  quietly  managed  his  own  campaign,  while 
Mr.  Hayes  left  his  political  interests  in  the  hands  of  the 


ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  283 

very  astute  chairman  of  the  National  committee  of  the 
Republican  party.  Senator  Chandler  of  Michigan. 
There  was  not  much  doubt  on  the  morning 

• U TtlG  C ft  TT1 » 

following  the  election,  the  morning  of  the  paign  and  the 
8th  November,  that  the  Democrats  had  electlon' 
triumphed.  Almost  all  of  the  Republican  newspapers 
conceded  it.  But  the  Republican  managers  knew  that 
they  could  do  what  they  pleased  with  the  electoral  votes 
of  South  Carolina,  Florida  and  Louisiana,  through  their 
canvassing  boards  in  these  “States,”  with  the  power  in 
these  boards  to  throw  out  the  returns  from  any  place 
where,  in  their  opinion,  there  had  been  any  violence, 
intimidation,  fraud  or  bribery  exercised  or  attempted  ; 
and  when  the  managers  found  that  they  were  pretty  sure 
of  the  electoral  votes  of  all  of  the  Northern  Common- 
wealths, except  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey 
and  Indiana,  they  simply  added  to  the  one  hundred  and 
sixty-six  electoral  votes  of  which  they  were  practically 
sure  the  nineteen  votes  of  Louisiana,  Florida  and  South 
Carolina,  of  which  they  were  absolutely  sure,  if  needed, 
and  sent  out  from  their  head-quarters  the  positive  an- 
nouncement that  Hayes  and  Wheeler  had  been  elected 
by  a majority  of  one  electoral  vote. 

But  the  final  count  of  the  electoral  vote  must  be  in 
the  presence  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  assembled 
in  one  place,  and  the  Democrats  were  in  ma-  The  COi:nt 
jority  in  one  of  the  Houses,  and  the  twenty-  “gecondjoint 
second  joint  rule,  as  it  was  called,  which  had  rule- 
been  applied  since  the  count  of  the  electoral  vote  of 
1864  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  result  of  the  returns 
to  Congress,  ordained  that  the  electoral  vote  of  any 
“ State  ” might  be  thrown  out  by  either  House.  If  this 
rule  should  be  considered  as  still  in  force,  and  be  ap- 
plied in  the  impending  count,  the  Democratic  House  of 
Representatives  could  reject  the  returns  of  the  Repub- 


284 


RECONSTRUCTION 


lican  authorities  in  South  Carolina,  Florida  and  Louisi- 
ana, and  thus  secure  the  election  of  Mr.  Tilden.  This 
rule,  however,  was  not  necessarily  binding  upon  this 
Congress,  as  it  had  not  been  re-enacted  by  the  Houses 
composing  it.  That  is,  either  House  could  lawfully 
refuse  to  acquiesce  in  its  further  application.  The  Re- 
publicans now  repudiated  it,  although  it  was  their  pred- 
ecessors who  had  created  it. 

Some  of  the  Republicans  now  claimed  that  the  Con- 
stitution vested  the  Vice-President,  or  rather  the  Presi- 
,r.  dent  of  the  Senate,  with  the  power  to  count 

sard  to  the  the  electoral  votes.  The  language  of  the 

powertocount  . . 00  _ 

the  electoral  Constitution  was,  and  still  is,  “the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  open  all  the 
certificates  and  the  votes  shall  then  be  counted.”  No 
President  of  the  Senate  had,  however,  ever  ventured  to 
determine  whether  a disputed  return,  in  case  any  such 
had  been  received  by  him,  was  to  be  counted,  and  Mr. 
Ferry,  the  President  of  the  Senate,  gave  his  Republican 
friends  to  understand  that  he  did  not  feel  like  assum- 
ing any  such  responsibility. 

Nevertheless,  the  Republicans  were  in  decided  ad  van - 
„ , tage.  They  had  the  President  of  the  United 

The  Repub-  ° ** 

licans  in  ad-  States  to  execute  by  force  whatever  they 
c oun t of  the  might  resolve  upon,  and  they  had  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  whose  scruples  the  Dem- 
ocrats had  not  discovered,  and,  of  course,  they  had  one 
House  of  the  Congress,  the  Senate. 

The  Democrats  felt  that  they  must  make  an  effort  to 
change  the  situation.  They,  therefore,  quickly  seized 
ei  nPon  a suggestion  made  by  a Republican  mem- 

tOTai  commis-  ber  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House 
sion  Bill.  Representatives,  Mr.  G.  W.  McCrary,  and 

voted  a measure  in  the  House  for  the  appointment  of 


ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  285 


members  to  a joint  committee  of  the  two  Houses,  which 
committee  should  immediately  report  a proposition  for 
counting  the  electoral  votes.  This  was  the  14th  of  De- 
cember, 1876.  The  Senate  agreed  to  this  measure  on 
the  next  day.  Three  Republicans  and  four  Democrats 
were  appointed  by  the  House,  and  four  Republicans  and 
three  Democrats  by  the  Senate,  and  the  committee  so 
constituted  reported,  on  the  18th  of  January,  1877,  the 
famous  Electoral  Commission  bill. 

The  essential  provisions  of  the  bill  were,  first,  the  crea- 
tion of  a Commission  composed  of  five  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  five  members  of  the  Senate, 
and  five  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  the  members  from  the  House  to  be  chosen  by  the 
House,  the  members  from  the  Senate  to  be  chosen  by  the 
Senate,  while  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  from 
the  first,  third,  eighth  and  ninth  circuits  were  designated 
in  the  bill,  and  they  were  authorized  to  select  a fifth 
from  among  the  other  members  of  the  Court ; second,  the 
fixing  of  the  rule  that  the  electoral  vote  of  any  “ State” 
from  which  only  a single  return  had  been  received 
should  be  counted  unless  both  Houses  should  decide 
otherwise,  and  of  the  other  rule  that  when  more  than 
one  return  had  been  received  from  any  “ State,”  the  Com- 
mission should  forthwith  decide  which  return  should  be 
counted,  and  this  return  should  be  counted  unless  both 
Houses  should  reject  the  decision,  or  order  otherwise  ; 
and  third,  the  reservation  of  any  right  existing  under 
the  Constitution  and  laws  to  question  before  the  courts 
of  the  United  States  the  titles  of  the  persons  who  should 
be  declared  elected  President  and  Vice-President  to 
these  respective  offices.  The  bill  was  sub-  The  passage 
jected  to  a most  thorough  discussion  in  both  of  the®ul- 
Houses.  It  passed  the  Senate  on  the  24th  of  January  by 
a vote  of  forty-seven  to  seventeen.  Twenty-one  Repub- 


286 


RECONSTRUCTION 


licans  and  twenty-six  Democrats  voted  in  favor  of  it, 
and  sixteen  Republicans  and  one  Democrat  voted  against 
it.  It  passed  the  House  on  the  26th  by  a vote  of  one 
hundred  and  ninety-one  to  eighty-six.  Thirty-three 
Republicans  and  one  hundred  and  fifty-eight  Democrats 
voted  for  it,  and  sixty-eight  Republicans  and  eighteen 
Democrats  voted  against  it.  It  is  certainly  fair,  there- 
fore, to  call  it  a Democratic  measure.  The  President 
signed  the  bill,  nevertheless,  on  the  29th. 

The  Senate  immediately  chose  Messrs.  Edmunds, 
Frelinghuysen  and  Morton,  Republicans,  and  Messrs. 

Bayard  and  Thurman,  Democrats,  to  repre- 

T h e mem-  J r 

bers  of  the  sent  it  upon  the  Commission,  and  the  House 
Commission.  ckose  Messi.g>  Garfield  and  Hoar,  Republi- 
cans, and  Messrs.  Abbott,  Hunton  and  Payne,  Demo- 
crats. The  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  designated 
by  the  bill  as  members  of  the  Commission  were  Messrs. 
Clifford,  Strong,  Miller  and  Field.  Strong  and  Miller 
were  understood  to  be  Republicans,  and  Clifford  and 
Field  Democrats.  Upon  these  four  the  duty  was  im- 
posed to  select  the  fifth  Justice. 

Since  without  the  fifth  Justice  the  Commission  would 
consist  of  seven  Republicans  and  seven  Democrats,  it 
The  fifth  was  evident  that  this  Justice  would  be  the 
Justice.  umpire  in  every  question  of  disputed  returns 
which  the  two  Houses  could  not  themselves  settle  by 
concurrent  agreement.  The  responsibility  which  this 
Justice  would  have  to  bear  would  be  one  of  the  most 
onerous  and  solemn  duties  ever  imposed  upon  any  mor- 
tal. It  could  be  no  less  than  the  making  of  a President, 
and  it  might  be  the  determination  of  the  question 
whether  there  should  be  another  civil  war.  It  was  not 
a responsibility  to  be  courted,  but  no  man  upon  whom 
it  might  fall  could,  with  honor,  refuse  to  accept  it. 

It  was  the  general  feeling  throughout  the  discus- 


ELRCTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  287 

sion  of  the  bill  that  the  man  who  would  be  chosen 
was  Judge  David  Davis.  He  had  been  a Republican 
and  a close  personal  friend  of  Lincoln,  but  had  latterly 
inclined  toward  the  Democracy,  and,  it  was  thought, 
had  favored  the  election  of  Mr.  Tilden.  He  was  re- 
garded as  the  man  of  least  political  prejudice  among  a 
set  of  men  of  very  little  political  prejudice.  The  Dem- 
ocrats, however,  were  entirely  willing  to  risk  their 
cause  in  his  hands,  because  they  believed  it  was  strong 
enough  on  its  merits  to  convince  any  unprejudiced 
mind,  and  there  is  little  question  that  the  Republicans 
were  afraid  to  risk  their  cause  in  his  hands,  because 
they  knew  that  they  must  win  on  every  point  or  lose 
altogether,  and  they  hesitated  to  take  such  desperate 
chances  unless  whatever  political  prejudice  might  exist 
in  the  mind  of  the  umpire  should  be  on  their  side. 

But  to  the  apparent  surprise  of  everybody  and  to  the 
consternation  of  the  Democrats,  Justice  Davis  was  chosen 
by  the  Illinois  legislature,  on  the  25th  of  Jan-  jastiCe  Da- 
uary,  the  day  after  the  bill  passed  the  Sen- 
ate,  and  the  day  before  it  passed  the  House,  United  States 
Senator,  and  a few  days  after  the  bill  passed  the  House, 
he  accepted  the  position,  which  act  involved  his  resig- 
nation at  an  early  day  of  his  judicial  office  ; and  as  he 
was  now  to  leave  the  bench  and  go  into  the  political 
branch  of  the  Government,  as  a Democratic  Senator, 
elected  by  the  Democrats  of  the  Illinois  legislature, 
there  appeared  to  him  an  evident  impropriety  in  his 
acting  on  the  Commission  as  a representative  of  the  un- 
political branch  of  the  Government,  and  especially  as 
that  member  upon  whom  the  weightiest  responsibility 
would  fall,  and  who  would,  therefore,  be  expected  to 
act  with  greatest  political  impartiality,  and  with  an  eye 
single  to  public  justice.  Whether  Justice  Davis  sought 
this  election  to  the  senatorship  at  this  juncture  or  not, 


288 


RECONSTRUCTION 


in  order  to  escape  the  great  responsibility  that  was 
about  to  fall  upon  him,  we  do  not  know.  He  was  not  a 
particularly  brave  man.  He  was  a big,  fat  man,  a good 
liver,  and  loved  his  ease.  Ordinarily  men  will  not  ex- 
change the  high  and  life-long  office  of  a Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  for  a seat  in  the 
Senate.  Unless  he  had  his  eye  upon  the  Presidency  of 
the  United  States,  it  would  be  very  hard  to  explain  his 
action  in  exchanging  his  high  judicial  position  for  the 
senatorship  on  any  other  ground  than  his  desire  to 
escape  the  terrible  responsibility  of  deciding  whether 
Tilden  or  Hayes  should  be  President.  It  is  even  more 
difficult  to  account  for  the  action  of  the  Democrats  in 
the  legislature  of  Illinois.  They  certainly  did  not  in- 
tend to  harm  the  chances  of  Mr.  Tilden  by  this  act. 
The  Republicans  might  have  invented  such  a scheme  for 
disposing  of  the  Justice,  but  for  Democrats  to  have  been 
concerned  in  any  such  movement  is  incredible.  It  is 
probable  that  it  was  simply  a blunder  on  their  part. 
They  did  not  appreciate  the  incompatibility  between  the 
position  of  a Democratic  Senator-elect  and  membership 
on  the  Electoral  Commission  as  a judicial  representative. 
They  thought  that  as  the  Justice  would  not  take  his  seat 
in  the  Senate  until  after  the  4th  of  March  he  would  re- 
main a member  of  the  Supreme  Court  until  then,  and  as 
such  would  be  fully  qualified  for  the  place  on  the  Com- 
mission. The  legislature  at  Springfield  had  no  such 
delicate  and  discriminating  sense  of  official  proprie- 
ties as  obtained  in  Washington,  and  throughout  the  more 
fastidious  East. 

The  Democrats  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
learned  of  the  election  of  Justice  Davis  to  the  Senate 
on  the  morning  of  the  day  they  were  to  vote  on  the 
passage  of  the  Electoral  Commission  bill.  Even  they 
did  not  fully  realize  that  it  meant  that  the  Justice 


ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  289 

would  not  serve  on  the  Commission.  Moreover,  they 
had  gone  to  such  lengths  with  the  bill  that  it  was  too 
late  to  turn  back.  So  far  as  is  known  the  Justice  did 
not  inform  them  or  anybody  else  of  his  intention  to  ac- 
cept the  senatorship,  or  of  his  scruples  about  being  a 
member  of  the  Commission,  until  after  the  bill  became 
law.  When  he  did  do  so,  the  correctness  of  his  position 
was  so  clear  that  the  four  Justices  named  in  the  Act 
immediately  selected  Justice  Joseph  P.  Bradley  as  the 
fifth  judicial  member  of  the  Commission.  Bradley  was 
a Republican,  as  were  the  other  three  members  of  the 
court,  Waite,  Hunt  and  Swayne.  That  is,  after  Jus- 
tice Davis  was  disposed  of  there  remained  only  Repub- 
licans to  choose  from,  and  Bradley  being  regarded  as 
the  least  partisan,  and  the  most  learned  in  the  law, 
was  selected.  He  fully  realized  the  vast  responsibility 
which  had  been  thus  unexpectedly  thrust  upon  him, 
but  he  accepted  it  bravely  and  without  flinching,  and 
discharged  it  with  honor  and  success. 

The  Houses  of  Congress,  and  also  the  Electoral  Com- 
mission, met  on  the  1st  day  of  February  to  count  the 
electoral  vote.  The  Democrats  still  felt  sure  The  count- 
of  success,  since  they  would  win  the  election,  tora^vSte^by 
if  successful  upon  a single  point,  while  the  Con&reBS- 
Republicans,  to  be  successful,  must  win  upon  every  point. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  hopes  of  the  Republicans  had 
been  raised  by  gaining  the  majority  of  the  Commission. 

When  the  returns  were  opened  by  the  President  of 
the  Senate  two  sets  of  returns  were  found  from  each  <A 
the  four  “ States/’  Florida,  Louisiana,  South  The  double 
Carolina,  and  Oregon.  In  the  case  of  Flor- 
ida  the  electors  voting  for  Hayes  and  Wheel-  ’ina’.  Florida, 
er  sent  with  their  votes  the  certification  of  Oregon, 
the  “ State  ” Canvassing  Board  and  of  the  Governor  to 
their  election.  The  case  of  South  Carolina  was  the  same. 


290 


RECONSTRUCTION 


In  the  case  of  Louisiana  the  electors  voting  for  Hayes 
and  Wheeler  sent  with  their  votes  the  certification  of 
Governor  Kellogg  and  of  the  “ State  ” Canvassing  Board 
acting  with  him  to  their  election,  and  the  electors  voting 
for  Tilden  and  Hendricks  sent  the  certification  of  John 
McEnery,  claiming  to  be  Governor,  and  the  Canvassing 
Board  acting  with  him,  to  their  election. 

The  Oregon  case  was  more  complicated.  The  three 
Republican  electors  received  the  highest  number  of  votes, 
as  reported  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  by  the  laws  of 
Oregon  was  the  “ State”  canvassing  officer,  to  the  Gov- 
ernor. But  one  of  them.  Watts,  held  the  office  of  post- 
master in  a small  place  at  the  time  of  his  election,  and 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that 
“ no  Senator  or  Representative,  or  person  holding  any 
office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United  States,  shall 
be  appointed  an  elector.”  The  Democratic  Governor 
of  Oregon  decided  in  his  own  mind  that  Watts  was  not 
eligible,  and  made  out  his  certification  to  include,  be- 
side the  two  Republican  electors  who  were  eligible,  one 
Cronin,  the  Democrat  receiving  the  highest  number  of 
votes  for  elector,  although  the  number  received  by  him 
was  a minority  of  all  the  votes  cast  for  the  electoral 
tickets.  This  certificate  was  attested  by  the  Secretary  of 
State,  and  was  given  to  Cronin.  When  the  day  for  the 
meeting  of  the  electors  came  around  Cronin  presented 
himself  holding  the  Governor’s  certificate,  the  only  cer- 
tificate which  had  been  issued  to  the  electors  by  Gov- 
ernor Grover.  But  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  had  this 
technical  advantage,  the  two  Republican  electors,  whose 
names  were  included  in  the  Governor’s  certificate,  re- 
fused to  act  with  him,  and  he  refused  to  let  them  have 
the  certificate  to  attach  to  their  return  of  the  electoral 
vote  to  the  President  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  unless  they  should  so  act.  Both  parties  persisted 


ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  291 


in  their  refusals.  Whereupon  Cronin  selected  one  J. 
N.  Y.  Miller  and  one  John  Parker  to  fill  up  the  elec- 
toral college  of  Oregon  and  these  three  cast  two  elector- 
al votes  for  Hayes  and  Wheeler  and  one  for  Tilden  and 
Hendricks,  and,  after  attaching  the  Governor’s  certifi- 
cation to  the  record  of  their  vote  in  due  form,  sent  this 
return  to  the  President  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  as  required  by  the  Constitution.  At  the  same 
time  the  two  Republican  electors,  Odell  and  Cartwright, 
met  to  cast  the  electoral  vote  of  the  Commonwealth. 
Watts  was  also  present.  He  had  resigned  his  office  of 
postmaster,  and  now  he  resigned  his  position  as  elector. 
The  other  two  accepted  his  resignation,  and  immediate- 
ly chose  him  an  elector.  The  three  then  cast  the  elec- 
toral vote  of  the  Commonwealth  for  Hayes  and  Wheeler. 
As  we  have  seen,  they  did  not  have  the  certification  of 
their  election  by  the  Governor  to  attach  to  their  votes,  as 
required  by  the  law  of  the  United  States,  but  they  pro- 
cured from  the  Secretary  of  State  a certified  copy  of  the 
canvass  of  the  votes  for  the  electors,  which  showed  the 
election  of  the  three  Republican  candidates,  and  sent  this, 
and  also  a copy  of  their  proceedings  in  accepting  the  res- 
ignation of  Watts,  and  then  electing  him  an  elector,  along 
with  their  report  of  the  vote  of  the  electors  for  President 
and  Vice-President,  to  the  President  of  the  Senate. 

Both  the  Republicans  and  the  Democrats  were  repre- 
sented by  most  able  counsel  before  the  Electoral  Com- 
mission. William  M.  Evarts,  Stanley  Mat- 

J The  counsel 

thews,  E.  W.  Stoughton,  and  Samuel  Sheila-  Commission  e 
barger  were  pitted  against  a formidable  array 
both  as  to  ability  and  numbers  on  the  other  side.  Judge 
J.  S.  Black,  Matthew  H.  Carpenter,  Charles  O’Conor, 
J.  A.  Campbell,  Lyman  Trumbull,  Ashbel  Green,  Mont- 
gomery Blair,  George  Hoadly,  William  C.  Whitney, 
R.  T.  Merrick  and  A.  P.  Morse. 


292 


KECONSTRUCTION 


The  Republicans  took  their  stand  at  the  outset  upon 
the  principle  that  Congress  could  not  go  behind  the  re- 
The  Repub-  turns  of  the  “State”  Canvassing  Board  or 
bean  position.  0fficerj  jn  counting  the  electoral  vote  from 
any  “State.”  They  contended  that  in  the  election  of 
the  President  and  Vice-President,  the  Constitution  had 
separated  the  procedure  into  two  distinct  parts,  and  had 
assigned  the  first  part  to  the  control  of  the  several 
“ States  ” exclusively,  and  the  second  part  to  the  con- 
trol of  Congress  exclusively  ; that  up  to  the  completion 
of  the  election  of  the  electors  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
“ States”  respectively  extended,  but  that  all  control  after 
that  point  had  been  reached  was  in  Congress,  and  that 
Congress  had  no  power  whatever,  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, to  revise,  interfere  with,  or  examine  into,  that  part 
assigned  by  the  Constitution  to  the  “ States  ” respect- 
ively, and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Congress  was  bound 
to  disregard  any  act  of  the  “ States,”  or  of  any  of  the 
officers  or  agents  of  the  “ States,”  in  that  part  assigned 
exclusively  by  the  Constitution  to  its  own  control.  There 
is  no  question  that  this  was  all  sound  constitutional  law 
and  that  the  Democrats  would  have  to  abandon  entirely 
their  old  “ States’  ” rights  doctrine  and  go  over  to  the 
most  extreme  nationalism  in  order  to  combat  it. 

It  did  not  appear  to  them  necessary  to  do  this  in  order 
to  win  their  case.  One  single  electoral  vote  from  any  one 
The  Demo-  of  the  four  “ States,”  from  which  double  re- 
cratic  position,  turns  had  been  received,  would  elect  Tilden 
and  Hendricks.  It  did  not  seem  to  them  that  the  line 
between  the  powers  of  the  “ States”  and  those  of  Con- 
gress over  the  election  of  the  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent could  under  the  existing  facts  be  drawn  anywhere 
without  giving  them  at  least  this  one  vote.  If  the  re- 
turns as  certified  to  by  the  Governors  and  the  “ State  ” 
canvassing  officer,  officers,  or  boards,  of  these  four 


ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  293 


“ States  ” should  be  received  and  counted  they  would  have 
this  one  vote  from  Oregon.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
popular  vote  for  the  electors  as  it  came  into  the  hands  of 
the  “ State  ” canvassing  officers  or  boards  was  to  be  re- 
ceived and  counted,  then  they  would  have  the  electoral 
votes  of  at  least  Louisiana,  Florida,  or  South  Carolina, 
and  perhaps  of  all  of  them.  But  the  Republicans  con- 
tended that  the  line  between  “State”  control  and  Con- 
gressional control  was  to  be  drawn  between  the  Governor’s 
certification  and  the  report  of  the  “ State  ” canvassing 
officer,  officers,  or  board  to  the  Governor  of  the  result  of 
the  vote  for  the  electors.  The  certification  issued  by  the 
Governor,  they  held,  was  ordered  by  Congressional  law 
and  was  under  Congressional  control,  even  when  the 
“ State  ” canvassing  officer,  officers,  or  board  should  join 
with  the  Governor  in  the  certification  of  the  persons 
chosen  electors.  The  report  of  the  vote  for  the  electors 
by  the  “ State  ” canvassing  officer,  officers,  or  board  to 
the  Governor  was  thus  the  final  act  under  “ State  ” con- 
trol, was  the  final  act  in  the  election  of  the  electors. 
This  was  unquestionably  sound  constitutional  law.  But 
it  would  give  all  the  electoral  votes  from  all  four  of  the 
“ States,”  from  which  double  returns  had  been  received, 
to  Hayes  and  Wheeler,  and  would  elect  them  by  one  vote. 

The  view  of  the  counsel  for  the  Republican  candidates 
prevailed  with  a majority  of  the  Commission.  By  a ma- 
jority of  a single  vote  the  Commission  gave  all 
the  electoral  votes  of  the  four  “ States  ” from  cisione  of  the 
which  double  returns  had  been  received  to  CommiBSlon- 
Hayes  and  Wheeler,  and  since  the  decisions  of  the  Com- 
mission were  final  unless  negatived  by  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  and  the  Republican  Senate,  of  course,  sus- 
tained the  decisions  of  the  Commission,  there  was  noth- 
ing for  the  Democrats  to  do  but  submit  or  have  recourse 
to  violence.  Threats  were  freely  expressed  of  having 


294 


RECONSTRUCTION 


Mr.  Tilden  take  the  oath  of  office,  and  then  conducting 
him,  under  the  support  of  a large  armed  body,  to  the 
White  House  and  installing  him  there.  But  it  was  ob- 
served that  the  Southern  Democrats  did  not  participate 
in  these  menacing  declarations,  and  it  was  soon  learned 
that  Mr.  Tilden  himself  would  not  lend  himself  to 
any  such  desperate  movement.  Moreover,  the  existing 
President  had,  with  his  usual  promptness  and  decision, 
prepared  himself  to  meet  all  exigencies,  and  had  let  it 
be  known  that  he  would  uphold  the  decisions  to  which 
Congress  and  its  Commission  might  come  by  any  power 
necessary  to  accomplish  the  result. 

In  the  early  morning  of  March  2d,  the  count  was 
completed,  and  Hayes  and  Wheeler  were  proclaimed  by 
the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  Mr.  Ferry, 
declared  Pres-  elected  President  and  Vice-President  of  the 
United  States  by  a majority  of  one  electoral 
vote.  The  popular  vote  for  the  electors  was  about  eight 
millions  three  hundred  thousand.  Of  this  vast  number 
the  Tilden  electors  had  received  the  majority  by  about 
two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  according  to' the  Re- 
publican count,  and  by  about  three  hundred  thousand, 
according  to  the  Democratic  count.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered, however,  that  it  is  quite  possible  for  the  candi- 
date of  one  party  to  receive  a popular  majority  through- 
out the  whole  country,  and  the  candidate  of  the  other  to 
receive  a majority  of  the  electoral  votes,  simply  because 
the  popular  vote  is  counted,  in  electing  the  electors, 
by  “ States  ” and  not  in  the  aggregate. 

The  truth  in  regard  to  the  whole  transaction  of  the 
election  probably  is  that  the  Democrats  did  in  some 
places  in  the  South  intimidate  voters  ; that  the  Repub- 
lican “State”  canvassing  officers,  making  this  a justifi- 
cation, or  an  excuse,  did  throw  out  votes  that  ought  to 
have  been  counted ; and  that  the  existing  law  of  elec- 


ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  295 

tions,  administered  by  Republicans,  was  capable  of  being 
so  interpreted  as  to  give  legal  warrant  to  all  that  was 
done  by  them.  A perfectly  fair  election  in 
the  “ States  ” of  Louisiana,  Florida,  and  regard  to  the 
South  Carolina,  with  the  law  of  suffrage  then  electl0n' 
obtaining,  would  probably  have  resulted  in  a popular 
majority  for  the  Republican  candidates  for  electors. 
Accepting  the  law  of  suffrage  as  then  existing  for  the 
basis  of  our  reasoning,  it  will  have  to  be  conceded  that 
the  Republicans  were  in  the  right  both  morally  and 
legally,  and  that  the  title  of  Hayes  and  Wheeler  to  the 
offices  of  President  and  Vice-President  was  entirely 
sound  and  unimpeachable.  They  were  inaugurated  on 
the  5th  day  of  March,  1877,  without  any  attempt  at 
resistance  or  disturbance  from  any  quarter. 

During  the  counting  of  the  electoral  vote  it  was  sus- 
pected that  the  friends  of  Mr.  Hayes  were  giving  some 
assurances  to  the  Southerners  in  Congress  in 
regard  to  what  the  policy  of  his  Administra-  southeroypoi8 
tion  would  be  concerning  the  “ State  ” gov-  icy‘ 
ernments  in  the  South.  The  unwillingness  of  the 
Southern  Democrats  to  join  with  their  party  associates 
of  the  North  in  any  revolutionary  projects  was  attrib- 
uted partly  to  this.  While  there  is  no  evidence  that 
Mr.  Hayes  ever  pledged  himself  to  the  Southerners  in 
regard  to  anything,  still  it  is  probably  true  that  his 
views  concerning  the  unwisdom  of  the  employment 
of  the  military  power  of  the  United  States  in  up- 
holding the  negro-Republican  “ State  ” governments 
in  the  South  were  imparted  to  them  by  his  friends.  At 
any  rate,  he  announced  in  his  inaugural  address  that  he 
considered  the  re-establishment  of  local  self-government 
in  these  “ States”  to  be  one  of  the  prime  objects  of  his 
Administration,  and  he  speedily  withdrew  the  support  of 
the  military  power  of  the  United  States  from  the  three 


296 


RECONSTRUCTION 


negro-Republican  “ State  ” governments,  and  left  them 
to  their  own  resources. 

The  result  was  that,  although  the  Republican  candi- 
dates for  Governor  and  for  the  members  of  the  legis- 
The  result  of  lature  in  these  three  “ States  ” received  about 
his  policy.  the  same  Yote  as  the  Republican  presidential 
electors,  and  in  January  of  1877  actually  assumed  power, 
the  Democratic  candidates  ousted  them  from  the  offi- 
ces, and  in  sufficient  number  from  the  legislative  seats, 
and  established  at  last  Democratic  white  rule  in  all  the 
“ States  ” of  the  South.  In  Florida  the  Republican,  M. 
L.  Stearns,  gave  way  to  the  Democrat,  George  F.  Drew, 
in  the  gubernatorial  office ; in  South  Carolina  D.  H. 
Chamberlain  gave  way  to  Wade  Hampton,  and  in  Louis- 
iana, S.  B.  Packard  gave  way  to  Francis  T.  Nicholls. 

Order  and  peace  were  quickly  established  everywhere, 
and  the  plundered  and  impoverished  South  could  at  last 
take  hope  and  feel  courage  to  make  a new  effort  to 
recover  some  degree  of  prosperity  and  some  measure  of 
domestic  content.  For  ten  years  the  dark  night  of 
domination  by  the  negro  and  adventurer  had  rested  upon 
the  unhappy  section,  until  it  had  been  reduced  to  the 
very  abomination  of  desolation.  Broken  in  health  and 
fortune,  sick  at  heart,  conscious  of  the  terrible  degra- 
dation which  had  been  imposed  upon  them,  and  politi- 
cally ostracized,  the  better  part  of  the  white  population 
of  the  South  had  staggered  and  groped  through  the 
hideous  experiences  of  this  period,  and  such  of  them  as 
had  not  perished  during  the  awful  passage  had  now  at 
last  been  relieved  of  the  frightful  scourge,  and  half 
dazed,  as  if  just  recovering  from  a terrible  nightmare, 
found  themselves  again  in  the  places  of  power  and  re- 
sponsibility. But  they  brought  with  them,  as  their 
dominant  passion^  undying  hatred  ~oY  the~ RepubTT- 
can  party  as  the  author  of  all  their  woes,  and  as  their 


ELECTION  OF  1876  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES  297 

dominant  policy,  the  (stern  and  unbending  resolve  to 
stand  together  as  one-man  against  every  movement 
which  had  even  the  slightest  tendency  toward  a res- 
toration of  the  hated  conditions  from  which  they  had 
escaped.!  No  sane  mind  can  wonder  at  “the  solid 
South/’  or  at  the  Democratic  South.  Life,  property, 
happiness,  honor,  civilization,  everything  which  makes 
existence  endurable  demanded  that  the  decent  white 
men  of  the  South  should  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  in 
defending  their  families,  their  homes  and  their  com- 
munities from  any  return  of  the  vile  plague  under 
which  they  had  suffered  so  long  and  so  cruelly  ; and 
human  instinct  determined  that  this  should  he  done  in 
connection  with  that  party  which  was  hostile  to  the  Re- 
publican party.  The  differences  which  lead  to  a fair 
fight  and  the  wounds  which  are  received  in  it  are  easily 
healed,  but  indignities  heaped  upon  a fallen  foe  create 
a bitterness  of  heart  that  lasts  so  long  as  life  endures. 

Slavery  was  a great  wrong,  and  secession  was  an  error 
and  a terrible  blunder,  but  Reconstruction  was  a punish- 
ment  so  far  in  excess  of  the  crime  that  it  extinguished 
every  senseof  culpability  upon  the~part  of  those  whom  it 
was  sought  to  Convict  and  convert.  More  than  a quarter 
oT/Tcentury  has  now  passed  since  the  blunder-crime  of 
Reconstruction  played  its  baleful  part  in  alienating  the 
two  sections  of  the  country.  Until  four  years  ago  little 
progress  had  been  made  in  reconciling  them.  It  is  said 
now  that  the  recent  war  with  Spain,  in  Reconciiia- 
which  men  from  the  North  and  men  from  ^NoitiTand 
the  South  marched  under  the  same  banner  the  south, 
to  battle  and  to  victory,  has  buried  the  hatchet  forever 
between  them.  But  they  had  done  this  many  times  be- 
fore, and  yet  it  did  not  prevent  the  attempt  to  destroy 
the  Union.  It  cannot  be  in  this  alone  that  the  South 
feels  increased  security  against  the  doctrines  and  the  poli- 


298 


RECONSTRUCTION 


cies  and  interferences  of  the  Republican  party  with  regard 
to  the  negro  question,  the  great  question  which-haa  made 
and  kept~theSouth  solidly  Democratic.  It  is  something 
far  more  significant  and  substantial  than  this.  It  is 
to  some  the  pleasing,  though  to  others  startling,  fact, 
that  the  Republican  party,  in  its  work  of  imposing  the 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States  upon  eight  millions  of 
Asiatics,  has  changed  its  views  in  regard  to  the  political 
relation  of  races  and  has  at  last  virtually  accepted  the 

ideas  of  the  South  upon  that  subject.  The  white  men  of 

the  South~need  now  have  no  further  fear  that  the  Re- 

publican  party,  or  Republican  Administrations,  will  ever 
again  give  themselves  over  to  the  vain  imagination  of  the 

political  equality  of  man.  It  is  this  change  of  mind  and 

heart  on  the  part  of  the  Uorth  in  regard  to  this  vital 
'questidTTof  Southern  “ State”  polity  which  has  caused 

the  now  much-talked-of  reconciliation. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
BETWEEN  1867  AND  1877 

The  Purchase  of  Alaska— The  Contention  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives in  Regard  to  its  Power  over  Treaties — The  Sen- 
ate’s Position  and  the  Compromise — Irritation  of  the  Ameri- 
can People  against  Great  Britain — The  Johnson-Clarendon 
Treaty  — President  Grant’s  Statements  in  His  First  Annual 
Message  and  in  His  Second  Annual  Address — Sir  John  Rose’s 
Mission  to  the  United  States — The  Joint  High  Commission — 
The  Treaty  of  Washington — The  Alabama  Claims  and  the 
Geneva  Convention — Triumph  of  the  Diplomacy  of  the  United 
States — Organization  of  the  Tribunal  and  Filing  of  the  Cases 
— The  Controversy  between  Mr.  Fish  and  Lord  Granville — 
The  Filing  of  the  Counter  Cases  and  the  Argument — Obstacles 
— Decision  of  the  Tribunal  in  Regard  to  National  and  Indirect 
Damages — The  Decision  of  the  Tribunal  in  the  Case  of  the 
Florida — The  Decision  in  the  Case  of  the  Alabama — The 
Decision  in  the  Case  of  the  Shenandoah , and  other  Vessels — 
International  Principles  Settled  by  the  Geneva  Tribunal — The 
Northwest  Boundary  Question — The  Fisheries  Question — The 
Halifax  Commission  and  Award  — The  Burlingame  Treaty 
with  China — The  Attempt  to  Annex  the  Dominican  Republic 
to  the  United  States — The  Treaty — The  Treaty  before  the 
Senate — Its  Rejection — The  President’s  Attempt  to  Renew 
Negotiations — The  Committee  of  Inquiry — The  Report  of  the 
Committee — The  Abandonment  of  the  Scheme. 

The  two  chief  products  of  American  diplomacy  in 
the  decade  between  1867  and  1877  were  the  purchase  of 
Alaska,  and  the  treaty  of  "Washington  with  Great  Britain. 

The  purchase  of  Alaska,  the  northwest  corner  of  the 
North  American  continent,  together  with  the  islands 

299 


300 


RECONSTRUCTION 


adjacent  thereto,  a vast  region  of  some  five  hundred 
thousand  square  miles  in  extent,  inhabited  chiefly  by 
The  purchase  a few  savage  tribes,  was  effected  by  a 
of  Alaska.  treaty,  negotiated  by  Mr.  Seward  and  the 
Russian  diplomatist,  Baron  Stoeckl,  and  ratified  by 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  30th  of  March, 
1867. 

The  proposition  came  from  the  side  of  Russia,  and  it 
appeared  that  Russia  was  more  eager  to  sell  than  the 

The  rea-  United  States  was  to  buy.  The  price  agreed 
a°gn|in08tathe  5n  was  seven  millions  two  hundred  thousand 
purchase.  dollars  in  gold,  and  most  people  in  the  United 
States  thought,  at  the  time,  that  this  great  sum  was 
being  paid  for  nothing  but  a barren  area  of  snow  and 
ice.  The  country  was  declared  to  be  utterly  worthless  by 
some  of  the  best  informed  men  in  Congress,  and  a man 
of  no  less  ability  and  influence  than  Mr.  Shellabarger 
opposed  the  purchase  on  the  ground  that  it  involved 
an  extension  of  territory  dangerous  to  the  existence  of 
the  Republic. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  men  as  General  Banks  and 
Mr.  Stevens  contended  that  from  the  point  of  view  of 
a business  transaction  alone  it  was  worth  the  money  ; 
and  Mr.  Higby,  of  California,  told  his  colleagues  that 
they  were  mistaken  in  regard  to  the  climate  of  the  re- 
gion. The  consideration,  however,  which  seems  to  have 
had  most  weight  was  gratitude  toward  Russia,  whose 
government  had  manifested  the  most  friendly  feeling 
for  the  Union  in  the  struggle  against  the  giant  rebellion, 
and  had  even  threatened  interference  in  behalf  of  the 
Union  against  interference  in  behalf  of  the  Confederacy 
by  any  other  European  state.  That  acute  observer  of 
political  opinion,  Mr.  Blaine,  affirmed  that  a like  offer 
from  any  other  European  government  would  most  prob- 
ably have  been  declined. 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


301 


It  is,  however,  almost  certain  that  Mr.  Seward  had 
another  very  profound  reason  for  making  the  purchase, 
one  which  he  could  not  very  well  proclaim  ] o].t 
from  the  housetops,  especially  as  the  feeling  icai  reason  for 
on  his  part,  and  on  the  part  of  the  Govern-  the  purchase- 
ment  and  of  the  people  of  the  North,  was  most  kindly 
toward  Russia.  It  was  this  : The  United  States  would 
in  this  way  and  at  a comparatively  small  cost  rid  herself 
forever  of  any  danger  of  Russian  colonization  on  the 
North  American  continent,  and  of  the  danger  of  any 
complications  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain  upon 
this  continent.  This  was  a most  important  political 
consideration,  one  which  much  overbalanced  the  price 
paid  for  the  territory  and  the  cost  of  its  adminis- 
tration. 

When  the  bill  for  making  the  appropriation  to  pay 
for  Alaska  came  before  the  House  of  Representatives, 
that  body  raised  the  question  of  the  power  The  conten_ 
of  the  House  over  treaties  involving  the  pay-  bion  Ue 
ment  of  money  by  the  United  States,  by  as-  resentauvesm 
serting  in  the  preamble  of  the  bill  that  its  p ow  e r over 

i jji  i • -i • i p i trea ties  in— 

consent  was  necessary  to  the  validity  oi  such  voivingthe 
treaties.  It  did  so  on  the  ground  that  as  an  money1  by  the 
independent  legislative  body  it  could  refuse  Umted  stateB- 
any  appropriation  at  its  own  discretion,  and  that  as  all 
foreign  countries  were  bound  to  know  this  from  the 
wording  of  the  Constitution,  no  foreign  country  could 
consider  a treaty  with  the  United  States,  involving 
financial  obligations  by  the  United  States,  as  completed 
until  the  House  of  Representatives  should  have  voted 
the  appropriation  of  the  amount  stipulated  in  the  agree- 
ment. 

The  Senate,  on  the  other  hand,  repudiated  this  doc- 
trine, and  rejected  the  bill  with  the  preamble  contain- 
ing it  as  it  came  from  the  House  of  Representatives. 


302 


RECONSTRUCTION 


The  bill  then  went  to  a conference  committee  of  the  two 
Houses,  and  this  committee  invented  a preamble  which 
The  Senate’s  read  : “Whereas  the  President  has  entered 
the'com  p?od  into  a treaty  with  the  Emperor  of  Russia, 
nuse-  and  the  Senate  thereafter  gave  its  advice  and 

consent  to  said  treaty,  and  whereas  said  stipulations 
cannot  be  carried  into  full  force  and  effect,  except  by 
legislation  to  which  the  consent  of  both  Houses  of  Con- 
gress is  necessary  ; therefore  be  it  resolved,”  etc.  Both 
Houses  adopted  the  bill  in  this  form  and  it  became  law 
July  27th,  1868. 

The  contention  of  the  House  was  good  political  science, 
but  it  is  still  doubtful  whether  it  is  the  constitutional 
law  of  the  United  States  or  not.  The  more  recent  con- 
stitutions of  even  the  European  states,  such  as  those  of 
Germany  and  France,  make  the  consent  of  both  houses 
of  the  legislature  necessary  to  the  validity  of  all  treaties 
involving  the  appropriation  of  money,  or  the  assump- 
tion of  any  financial  obligation.  This  is  as  it  should 
be ; and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ought  to 
be  so  amended  as  to  establish  clearly  the  same  principle. 

We  have,  in  the  preceding  volume  of  this  series,  fol- 
lowed the  history  of  the  relations  of  the  United  States 
irritation  of  with  Great  Britain  down  to  the  close  of  the 
pwpfe^.gafne't  rebellion,  and  have  referred  to  the  general 
Great  Britain,  irritation  on  the  part  of  the  loyal  people  of 
the  United  States  against  the  British  government  for  its 
attitude  in  regard  to  the  acts  of  its  subjects  in  furnishing 
warships  and  munitions  to  the  Confederates.  There 
were  many  who  favored  turning  the  great  military  power 
with  which  the  United  States  emerged  from  the  Civil 
War  against  Great  Britain,  and  forcing  a settlement  of 
those  difficulties  by  the  trial  of  arms ; but  Seward  re- 
mained in  the  direction  of  the  foreign  affairs  of  the 
Union,  and  he  had  had  enough  of  war.  Moreover,  he 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


303 


foresaw  a change  of  government  in  Great  Britain,  and 
with  it  he  hoped  for  a change  of  sentiment  on  the  part 
of  the  new  government  on  the  international  question. 
This  event  happened  in  consequence  of  the  parliamen- 
tary election  of  1867.  The  Minister  of  Tor-  . 

eign  Affairs  in  Mr.  Gladstone’s  cabinet  was  p^iamentaiy 
first  Lord  Stanley,  and  then  the  Earl  of  Clar-  majority  in 
endon,  both  of  them  very  different  in  charac- 
ter from  Lord  John  Russell.  From  the  outset  each  of 
them  manifested  a sincere  desire  to  reach  an  amicable 
settlement  of  all  differences  with  the  United  States. 
The  trouble  at  this  juncture  seems  to  have  been  the 
extravagance  of  the  claims  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Adams,  whose  patience  had  become  much  worn,  talked 
about  private  damages,  national  damages  and  an  apology. 
The  British  Ministers  thought  this  too  preposterous  to 
be  seriously  meant. 

Before,  however,  the  discussion  had  fairly  begun  Mr. 
Adams  returned  to  the  United  States,  and  Mr.  Reverdy 
Johnson  was  sent  out  to  the  British  Court.  . . 

The  John- 

Mr.  Johnson  yielded  much  of  the  ground  j°e“ty]arendon 
assumed  by  Mr.  Adams  in  reference  to  claims 
for  national  injury,  and  in  January  of  1869  concluded 
an  agreement  with  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  for  submitting 
to  arbitration  the  claims  for  direct  damage  to  property 
rights. 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  promptly  rejected 
the  treaty  with  much  feeling,  because  it  did  not  contain 
proper  provision,  in  its  view,  for  the  reparation  of 
wrongs  to  the  Nation.  The  feeling  among  the  people 
of  both  countries  ran  so  high  that  the  Governments 
deemed  it  wise  to  cease,  for  a time,  negotiations  upon 
the  subject.  The  new  President,  Grant,  in  his  Message 
of  December  6th,  1869,  described  the  situation  in  the 
following  language  : 


304 


RECONSTRUCTION 


“ Toward,  the  close  of  the  last  Administration  a con- 
vention was  signed  in  London  for  the  settlement  of  all 
President  outstanding  claims  between  Great  Britain  and 

Grant’s  state-  the  United  States,  which  failed  to  receive 
ment  in  bis 

first  Annual  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  its 
Mcss&ge.  , • i 

ratification.  The  time  and  the  circumstances 
attending  the  negotiation  of  that  treaty  were  unfavorable 
to  its  acceptance  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
its  provisions  were  wholly  inadequate  for  the  settlement 
of  the  grave  wrongs  that  had  been  sustained  by  this 
Government,  as  well  as  by  its  citizens.  The  injuries 
resulting  to  the  United  States  by  reason  of  the  course 
adopted  by  Great  Britain  during  our  late  Civil  War  in 
the  increased  rates  of  insurance,  in  the  diminution  of  ex- 
ports and  imports  and  other  obstructions  to  domestic 
industry  and  production,  in  its  effect  upon  the  foreign 
commerce  of  the  country,  in  the  decrease  and  transfer  to 
Great  Britain  of  our  commercial  marine,  in  the  prolonga- 
tion of  the  war  and  the  increased  cost,  both  in  treasure 
and  lives,  of  its  suppression,  could  not  be  adjusted  and 
satisfied  as  ordinary  commercial  claims  which  continually 
arise  among  commercial  nations;  and  yet  the  convention 
treated  them  as  such  ordinary  claims,  from  which  they 
differ  more  widely  in  the  gravity  of  their  character  than 
in  the  magnitude  of  their  amount,  great  even  as  is  that 
difference.  Not  a word  was  found  in  the  treaty,  and 
not  an  inference  could  be  drawn  from  it,  to  remove  the 
sense  of  the  unfriendliness  of  the  course  of  Great  Britain 
in  our  struggle  for  existence,  which  had  so  deeply  and 
universally  impressed  itself  upon  the  people  of  this 
country.  Believing  that  a convention  thus  miscon- 
ceived in  its  scope  and  inadequate  in  its  provisions  would 
not  have  produced  the  hearty,  cordial  settlement  of 
pending  questions,  which  alone  is  consistent  with  the 
relations  which  I desire  to  have  firmly  established  be- 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


305 


tween  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  I regarded 
the  action  of  the  Senate  in  rejecting  the  treaty  to  have 
been  wisely  taken  in  the  interests  of  peace  and  as  a neces- 
sary step  in  the  direction  of  a perfect  and  cordial  friend- 
ship between  the  two  countries.  A sensitive  people,  con- 
scious of  their  power,  are  more  at  ease  under  a great 
wrong  wholly  unatoned  than  under  the  restraint  of  a 
settlement  which  satisfies  neither  their  ideas  of  justice  nor 
their  grave  sense  of  the  grievance  they  have  sustained. 
The  rejection  of  the  treaty  was  followed  by  a state  of 
public  feeling  on  both  sides  which  I thought  not  favor- 
able to  an  immediate  attempt  at  renewed  negotiations. 
I accordingly  so  instructed  the  Minister  of  the  United 
States  to  Great  Britain,  and  found  that  my  views  in  this 
regard  were  shared  by  Her  Majesty’s  Ministers.  I hope 
that  the  time  may  soon  arrive  when  the  two  Govern- 
ments can  approach  the  solution  of  this  momentous 
question  with  an  appreciation  of  what  is  due  to  the 
rights,  dignity  and  honor  of  each,  and  with  the  deter- 
niination  not  only  to  remove  the  causes  of  complaint  in 
the  past,  but  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a broad  principle 
of  public  law  which  will  prevent  future  differences  and 
tend  to  firm  and  continued  peace  and  friendship.” 

For  another  year  things  drifted,  and  the  views  of  the 
two  Governments  seemed  to  be  getting  wider  apart,  when 
President  Grant  wrote  in  his  Message  of  December  5th, 
1870  : 

“ I regret  to  say  that  no  conclusion  has  been  reached 
for  the  adjustment  of  the  claims  against  Great  Britain 
growing  out  of  the  course  adopted  by  that  The 
Government  during  the  Rebellion.  The  Cab-  dent’s,  state- 

• T . ment  in  his 

met  oi  London,  so  far  as  its  views  have  been  second  annual 
expressed,  does  not  appear  to  be  willing  to  message' 
concede  that  Her  Majesty’s  Government  was  guilty  of  any 
negligence,  or  did  or  permitted  any  act  during  the  War 


306 


RECONSTRUCTION 


by  which  the  United  States  has  just  cause  of  complaint. 
Our  firm  and  unalterable  convictions  are  directly  the  re- 
verse. I therefore  recommend  to  Congress  to  authorize 
the  appointment  of  a commission  to  take  proof  of  the 
amount  and  the  ownership  of  these  several  claims,  on 
notice  to  the  representative  of  Her  Majesty  at  Washing- 
ton, and  that  authority  be  given  for  the  settlement  of 
these  claims  by  the  United  States,  so  that  the  Govern- 
ment shall  have  the  ownership  of  the  private  claims,  as 
well  as  the  responsible  control  of  all  the  demands  against 
Great  Britain.  It  cannot  be  necessary  to  add  that 
whenever  Her  Majesty’s  Government  shall  entertain  a 
desire  for  a full  and  friendly  adjustment  of  these  claims 
the  United  States  will  enter  upon  their  consideration 
with  an  earnest  desire  for  a conclusion  consistent  with 
the  honor  and  dignity  of  both  nations.” 

This  was  what  is  now  called  “a  twist  of  the  lion’s 
tail.”  It  was  something  of  a twist,  although  it  was  ac- 
companied with  the  offer  of  the  olive  branch,  instead  of 
the  sword.  It  was  effective,  even  more  effective  for  the 
conciliatory  tone  of  the  final  paragraph.  Moreover,  with 
the  German  armies  encamped  around  Paris  and  through- 
out France,  the  affairs  of  Continental  Europe  were  too 
unsettled  and  precarious  for  Great  Britain  to  run  the 
risk  of  any  serious  complications  with  the  United  States. 

Accepting  the  President’s  message  as  an  invitation  to 
renew  negotiations,  the  British  Government,  at  the  be- 
sir  John  ginning  of  the  next  year  (1871),  sent  Sir 
to°the  Unfted  J°hn  Rose  to  Washington  to  sound  the  Pres- 
states.  ident  in  regard  to  the  matter.  The  President 
greeted  his  advances  with  great  cordiality,  and  on  the 
26th  of  the  month  (January),  Sir  Edward  Thorn- 
ton, the  British  Minister  to  the  United  States,  for- 
mally proposed  to  the  Hon.  Hamilton  Fish,  the  Sec- 
retary of  State,  the  appointment  of  a Joint  High 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


307 


Commission,  to  consist  of  five  persons  representing 
each  Government,  to  sit  at  Washington,  for  the  purpose 
of  settling  the  questions  between  the  two  Governments 
relative  to  Great  Britain’s  North  American  possessions. 
Mr.  Fish  immediately  expressed  the  willingness  of  his 
Government  to  enter  upon  the  negotiation,  provided  the 
differences  growing  out  of  the  events  of  the  Civil  War 
should  be  included  among  the  subjects  to  be  considered. 
The  British  Government  accepted  Mr.  Fish’s  proviso, 
and  the  respective  Governments  proceeded  to  appoint 
the  members  of  the  Commission.  President  The  Jo;nt 
Grant  designated  Hamilton  Fish,  Ebenezer  Highcommis- 
R.  Hoar,  Justice  Samuel  Nelson,  Robert  C. 

Schenck  and  George  H.  Williams.  Her  Majesty  selected 
Earl  de  Grey  and  Ripon,  Sir  John  Macdonald,  Sir  Staf- 
ford Northcote,  Sir  Edward  Thornton  and  Professor 
Montague  Bernard.  These  eminent  gentlemen  pro- 
ceeded immediately  upon  their  momentous  undertaking, 
and  on  the  8th  of  May  (1871)  concluded  the  treaty  be- 
tween the  two  Governments,  known  as  the  Treaty  of 
Washington,  which  was  duly  ratified,  and  on  the  4th  of 
July  proclaimed  to  the  world. 

The  first  eleven  articles  of  this  agreement  relate  to 
the  claims  for  damages  arising  from  the  incidents  of  the 
Civil  War,  known  as  the  Alabama  Claims.  TheTreatyof 
This  was  the  subject  of  transcendent  impor-  Washinston- 
tance  in  the  Treaty ; this  was  the  subject  which  was, 
by  these  articles,  referred  to  the  Court  of  Arbitration  to 
sit  at  Geneva. 

They  contain,  in  the  first  place,  an  expression  of  re- 
gret for  the  escape  of  the  Confederate  vessels  from 
British  ports  and  for  the  depredations  committed  by 
them. 

They  provide,  secondly,  for  a tribunal  of  arbitration, 
composed  of  five  members,  one  of  whom  should  be 


308 


RECONSTRUCTION 


named  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  one  by 
Her  Britannic  Majesty,  one  by  the  King  of  Italy,  one 
by  the  President  of  the  Swiss  Confederation,  and  one  by 
the  Emperor  of  Brazil  ; and,  in  case  either  of  these  last 
three  mentioned  should  fail  to  name  an  arbitrator,  they 
provide  that  one  should  be  named  by  the  King  of 
Sweden  and  Norway  ; and  finally,  that  one  agent  should 
be  named  by  each  of  the  high  contracting  parties  to 
represent  it  generally  in  all  matters  connected  with  the 
arbitration. 

They  provide,  in  the  third  place,  that  “ the  Arbitra- 
tors shall  meet  at  Geneva,  in  Switzerland,  at  the  earliest 
The  a 1 a convenient  day  after  they  shall  have  been 
an™athelaiGe8  named’  an(I  shall  proceed  impartially  and 
neva  conven-  carefully  to  examine  and  decide  all  questions 
that  shall  be  laid  before  them  on  the  part  of 
the  Governments  of  the  United  States  and  Her  Britan- 
nic Majesty  respectively,”  and  that  “ all  questions  con- 
sidered by  the  Tribunal,  including  the  final  award, 
shall  be  decided  by  a majority  of  all  the  arbitrators.” 

They  provide,  in  the  fourth  place,  that  each  of  the 
two  high  contracting  parties  should  deliver  his  written 
or  printed  case,  together  with  all  the  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  it,  to  each  of  the  arbitrators  and  to  the  agent  of 
the  other  party,  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  organization 
of  the  Tribunal,  and  within  a period  not  exceeding  six 
months  from  the  17th  of  June,  1871  ; that  within  four 
months  after  the  delivery  on  both  sides  of  the  case,  each 
party  might  put  in  a counter  case,  with  additional  evi- 
dence, in  reply  to  the  case  of  the  other  party  ; that  the 
arbitrators  might  extend  the  time,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, for  delivering  the  counter  case ; that 
“ within  two  months  after  the  expiration  of  the  time 
limited  for  the  delivery  of  the  counter  case  on  both 
sides,”  the  agent  of  each  party  should  deliver  to  each  of 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


309 


the  arbitrators  “ and  to  the  agent  of  the  other  party  a 
written  or  printed  argument  showing  the  points  and 
referring  to  the  evidence  upon  which  his  Government 
relies  ” ; and  that  the  arbitrators  might  require  further 
argument  by  counsel,  giving  to  each  party  an  equal 
chance  to  be  heard. 

They  provide,  in  the  fifth  place,  that  the  Tribunal 
should  consider  the  case  of  each  vessel  separately  ; that 
it  might,  however,  award  a gross  sum,  or  that  in  case  it 
did  not  award  a sum  in  gross,  the  high  contracting  par- 
ties should  appoint  two  members  of  a board  of  assess- 
ors, and  request  the  Italian  Minister  at  Washington  to 
appoint  a third,  which  board  should  determine  the 
amounts  due  in  the  cases  in  which  the  arbitrators  had 
pronounced  responsibility. 

They  provide,  in  the  sixth  place,  that  in  deciding  the 
matters  submitted  the  arbitrators  should  be  governed  by 
the  following  rules  : 

“ A neutral  government  is  bound,  first,  to  use  dili- 
gence to  prevent  the  fitting  out,  arming,  or  equipping, 
within  its  jurisdiction,  of  any  vessel  which  it  has  reason- 
able ground  to  believe  is  intended  to  cruise  or  to  carry 
on  war  against  a Power  with  which  it  is  at  peace  ; and 
also  to  use  like  diligence  to  prevent  the  departure  from 
its  jurisdiction  of  any  vessel  intended  to  cruise  or  carry 
on  war  as  above,  such  vessel  having  been  specially 
adapted,  in  whole  or  in  part,  within  such  jurisdiction, 
to  warlike  use.  Secondly,  not  to  permit  or  suffer  either 
belligerent  to  make  use  of  its  ports  or  waters  as  the  base 
of  naval  operations  against  the  other,  or  for  the  purpose 
of  the  renewal  or  augmentation  of  military  supplies  or 
arms,  or  the  recruitment  of  men.  Thirdly,  to  exercise 
due  diligence  in  its  own  ports  and  waters,  and,  as  to  all 
persons  within  its  jurisdiction,  to  prevent  any  violation 
of  the  foregoing  obligations  and  duties. ” 


310 


RECONSTRUCTION 


They  provide,  in  the  seventh  place,  that  the  high 
contracting  parties  would  “agree  to  observe  these  rules 
as  between  themselves  in  the  future,  and  to  bring  them 
to  the  knowledge  of  other  maritime  powers,  and  to  in- 
vite them  to  accede  to  them.” 

And  they  provide,  finally,  that  the  result  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Tribunal  and  the  Board  of  Assessors,  in 
case  such  board  should  be  appointed,  should  be  ac- 
cepted as  a final  settlement  of  all  the  claims  known  as 
the  Alabama  Claims,  and  should  be  a bar  to  any  fur- 
ther proceedings  in  regard  to  them. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  had  in  this  Treaty  substantially  won  all  of  the 
Triumph  of  points  for  which  it  had  contended.  The 
ofethePuSted  Queen’s  Government  had  apologized.  It  had 
states.  agreed  that  the  general  principles  of  interna- 

tional law  in  regard  to  the  duties  of  neutrals  toward 
belligerents  should  take  precedence  over  municipal 
statutes,  and  should  not  be  limited  by  municipal  stat- 
utes. And  it  had  agreed  that  the  Tribunal  of  Arbitra- 
tion should  decide  all  questions  laid  before  it  by  the 
Governments  of  the  United  States  and  of  Her  Britannic 
Majesty  respectively. 

It  is  true  that  Her  Majesty’s  Government  qualified  its 
acceptance  of  the  rules  to  be  applied  in  determining  its 
responsibility  by  inserting  an  explanation  in  the  Treaty 
of  the  following  tenor:  “ Her  Britannic  Majesty  has 
commanded  her  High  Commissioners  and  Plenipoten- 
tiaries to  declare  that  Her  Majesty’s  Government  cannot 
assent  to  the  foregoing  rules  as  a statement  of  principles 
of  international  law  which  were  in  force  at  the  time 
when  the  claims  mentioned  in  Article  I.  arose,  but  that 
Her  Majesty’s  Government,  in  order  to  evince  its  desire 
of  strengthening  the  friendly  relations  between  the  two 
countries  and  of  making  satisfactory  provision  for  the 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


311 


future,  agrees  that,  in  deciding  the  questions  between 
the  two  countries  arising  out  of  those  claims,  the  Arbitra- 
tors should  assume  that  Her  Majesty’s  Government  had 
undertaken  to  act  upon  the  principles  set  forth  in  these 
rules.” 

And  it  is  also  true  that,  while,  according  to  the  letter 
of  the  Treaty,  the  United  States  Government  was  left 
unfettered  as  to  the  character  of  the  claims  which  it 
might  lay  before  the  Arbitrators,  Her  Majesty’s  Govern- 
ment had  been  led  to  expect  more  moderation  in  this 
respect  than  the  popular  sentiment  in  the  United  States 
seemed  to  indicate. 

The  two  Governments  and  the  high  personages  in- 
vited by  them  proceeded  in  due  time  to  appoint  the 
Arbitrators.  The  President  of  the  United 
States  appointed  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams;  tors,  agents 
Her  Majesty  named  Chief  Justice  Alexander  aDdcoun3el- 
Cockburn  ; the  Italian  King  designated  Count  Frederic 
Sclopis  ; the  President  of  the  Swiss  Confederation  desig- 
nated Mr.  Jacob  Staempfli,  and  the  Emperor  of  Brazil 
named  the  Baron  d’ltajuba. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  also  appointed  Mr. 
J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis  as  the  agent  of  the  United  States 
before  the  Tribunal,  and  Mr.  Caleb  Cushing,  Mr.  Will- 
iam M.  Evarts  and  Mr.  Morrison  R.  Waite  as  counsel. 

Her  Majesty’s  Government  also  appointed  Lord  Ten- 
terden  as  the  agent  of  Great  Britain  before  the  Tribu- 
nal, and  Sir  Roundell  Palmer  as  chief  counsel. 

On  the  15th  of  December,  1871,  the  Arbitrators  or- 
ganized the  Tribunal  at  Geneva  with  Count  Frederic 
Sclopis  in  the  chair  as  presiding  officer,  organization 
and  with  Mr.  Alexander  Favrot  as  secretary.  naifandTfiiing 
The  printed  case  of  each  of  the  high  contract-  of  the  ca8es- 
ing  parties  was  filed  immediately  by  the  agent  of  each, 
and  the  Tribunal  ordered  the  counter  cases  to  be  filed 


312 


RECONSTRUCTION 


on  or  before  the  15th  day  of  the  following  April.  The 
Tribunal  then  adjourned  to  June  15th  following,  unless 
sooner  called  together  by  the  secretary. 

The  contents  of  the  case  of  the  United  States  became 
immediately  known  to  the  British  Ministers,  but  not  for 
some  weeks  to  the  British  people.  The  Ministers  were 
not  apparently  disturbed  in  mind  about  it,  although  they 
discovered  at  once  that  it  contained  claims  for  national 
damages  and  indirect  damages  as  well  as  for  direct  dam- 
ages to  individuals  ; but  as  soon  as  the  newspapers  got 
hold  of  this  fact,  they  raised  a tremendous  hue  and  cry, 
and  accused  those  who  had  prepared  the  case  of  taking  an 
unfair  advantage  of  the  wording  of  the  treaty.  The  Min- 
ister of  the  United  States  in  London,  General  Schenck, 
informed  Mr.  Fish  by  cable  of  the  agitation  in  London 
over  the  subject  and  of  the  demand  of  the  newspapers 
that  the  claim  for  national  and  indirect  damages  should 
be  withdrawn.  Mr.  Fish  replied  firmly  that  “ there 
must  be  no  withdrawal  of  any  part  of  the  claim  pre- 
sented.” At  this  moment  the  session  of  Parliament 
opened  and  the  Queen’s  speech  contained  a criticism  of 
the  extravagance  of  the  claims  of  the  United  States  in 
the  case  submitted  to  the  Tribunal.  The  matter  was 
The  contro  warmly  debated  in  Parliament,  and  on  Feb- 
verey  between  ruary  3d  the  British  Foreign  Minister,  Lord 
Lord  Gran-  Granville,  opened  a diplomatic  discussion 
with  Mr.  Fish  upon  the  subject.  Mr.  Fish, 
however,  held  his  ground  with  great  courage  and  ability, 
insisting  that  the  claims  of  every  character  should  be 
disposed  of  by  the  Tribunal  in  order  to  remove  them 
from  the  domain  of  further  controversy  and  in  order  to 
establish  perfect  harmony  in  the  relations  of  the  two 
countries. 

Before  this  discussion  terminated  the  day  arrived  for 
the  filing  of  the  counter  cases.  They  were  both  prompt- 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


313 


ly  filed  with  a reservation  of  all  rights  by  each  of  the 
high  contracting  parties.  The  diplomatic  discussion 
culminated  in  an  attempt  to  make  a supplemental  treaty, 
which  should  provide  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  should  withdraw  its  claims  for  national  losses  and 
indirect  losses,  on  the  condition  that  no  such  losses 
should  be  claimed  by  either  Government  in  the  future. 
But  the  day  arrived  for  the  filing  of  the  ar-  The  filing  of 
guments  before  anything  was  effected.  The  caees'and'the 
agent  of  the  United  States  filed  his  argument  areumeilt- 
on  the  day  fixed,  the  15th  of  June,  but  the  British  agent 
only  filed  a statement  setting  forth  the  differences  be- 
tween the  two  Governments  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Treaty  in  respect  to  claims  for  national  and  indirect 
damages,  and  the  late  negotiations  and  discussions  be- 
tween the  two  Governments  concerning  these  differ- 
ences. The  British  agent  also  expressed  the  hope  that, 
if  time  were  given,  these  negotiations  would  prove  fruit- 
ful, and  asked  the  Arbitrators  to  adjourn  for  eight 
months. 

It  looked  as  if  the  work  of  the  commissioners,  who  had 
framed  the  Treaty,  and  of  the  Arbitrators,  who  had  now 
given  six  months  of  their  time  to  its  execu-  0betac]es 
tion,  would  go  for  naught,  and  that  the  Gov- 
ernments and  the  people  of  the  two  countries  would  be 
thrown  back  into  the  relations  existing  during  the  years 
1869  and  1870,  with  intensified  feelings  of  hostility. 
The  Arbitrators  realized  the  seriousness  of  the  situation 
and  did  not  yield  to  the  request  of  the  British  agent. 
They  adjourned  to  the  19th  of  the  month.  Decision  of 
that  is  for  four  days  only,  in  order  to  delib-  U ereg^rbnntao 
erate  upon  the  proposition.  When  they  re-  national  and 

x ex  _ J indirect  dam- 

assembled  on  the  19th  the  President  of  the  ages. 
Tribunal  announced  that  the  Arbitrators  had  decided 
to  inform  the  two  high  contracting  parties,  at  that 


314 


RECONSTRUCTION 


juncture,  that  the  Arbitrators  did  not  consider  the 
claims  for  national  and  indirect  damages  to  be  a good 
foundation  in  international  law  “ for  an  award  of  com- 
pensation or  computation  of  damages  between  nations  ; ” 
but  were  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  such  claims 
should  “ be  wholly  excluded  from  the  consideration  of 
the  Tribunal  in  making  its  award,  even  if  there  were  no 
disagreement  between  the  two  Governments  as  to  the 
competency  of  the  Tribunal  to  decide  them.”  The 
President  said  further,  that  the  Arbitrators  made  this 
announcement  in  order  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  might  consider  if  it  would  adopt  some 
course  in  reference  to  these  claims,  which  would  relieve 
the  Tribunal  from  deciding  upon  the  request  of  the 
British  agent  for  an  adjournment. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  was  duly  in- 
formed of  this  announcement  by  the  Tribunal,  and, 
upon  the  advice  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  United 
States,  he  instructed  the  agent  of  the  United  States  to 
make  the  following  reply  to  the  Tribunal  : 

“ The  declaration  made  by  the  Tribunal,  individu- 
ally and  collectively,  respecting  the  claims  presented  by 
the  United  States  for  the  award  of  the  Tribunal  for, 
first,  the  losses  in  the  transfer  of  the  American  com- 
mercial marine  to  the  British  flag,  second,  the  enhanced 
payment  of  insurance,  and,  third,  the  prolongation  of 
the  war  and  the  addition  of  a large  sum  to  the  cost  of 
the  war  and  the  suppression  of  the  Rebellion,  is  ac- 
cepted by  the  President  of  the  United  States  as  deter- 
minative of  their  judgment  upon  the  important  ques- 
tion of  public  law  involved.” 

This  reply  was  read  to  the  Tribunal  on  the  25th  of 
June,  and  on  the  27th  the  British  agent,  under  instruc- 
tions from  his  Government,  withdrew  his  request  for  an 
adjournment  and  filed  his  argument. 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


315 


It  was  supposed  by  the  Americans  that  the  whole  case 
on  both  sides  was  now  in,  and  that,  unless  the  Arbitrators 
should  require  further  argument  or  statement  in  refer- 
ence to  specific  points,  the  Tribunal  would  now  proceed 
to  make  its  decisions.  But  the  British  counsel  and  the 
British  agent  immediately  petitioned  the  Tribunal  to  be 
allowed  to  prepare  and  present  another  argument,  and 
to  have  six  weeks’  time  in  which  to  do  it,  and  even  the 
member  of  the  Tribunal  appointed  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment exerted  himself  to  secure  this  delay  and  this 
new  opportunity  for  the  British  agent  and  his  counsel. 
The  Tribunal  felt,  however,  that  it  was  in  possession  of 
the  evidence  and  the  argument  necessary  for  determin- 
ing the  question  before  it,  and  refused  the  request. 

The  Tribunal  now  adjourned  to  the  15th  of  July,  in 
order  to  give  its  members  time  and  opportunity  to  study 
the  cases.  On  the  15th,  the  arbitrators  reassembled  and 
invited  the  agent  and  counsel  of  each  of  the  high  con- 
tracting parties  to  sit  with  them  in  their  conferences. 
To  all  others,  however,  the  doors  were  closed.  They 
spent  some  two  days  discussing  the  order  of  the  procedure 
which  they  should  follow,  and  finally  adopted  the  order 
proposed  by  Mr.  Staempfli,  and  also  indicated  in  the 
Treaty  itself,  which  was  to  take  up  the  case  of  each 
vessel  separately,  and  allow  each  Arbitrator  to  express  a 
provisional  opinion  upon  it,  which  opinion,  however, 
should  not  be  conclusive  even  on  the  Arbitrator  himself 
who  gave  it. 

On  the  17th  of  the  month  (July),  the  Tribunal  pro- 
ceeded to  take  up  the  case  of  the  Florida  and  to  hear  the 
opinions  of  the  Arbitrators  upon  it.  Four  of  The  decision 
the  five  Arbitrators  were  of  the  opinion  that  na/inthe'case 
the  British  Government  had  failed  to  exercise  of  the  Florida. 
due  diligence  in  the  discharge  of  its  neutral  duties  tow- 
ard the  United  States  in  this  case.  Sir  Alexander  Cock- 


316 


RECONSTRUCTION 


burn  alone  disagreed  with  this  view.  The  four  also  held 
that  the  tenders  of  the  Florida  should  follow  the  lot  of 
their  principal.  The  reading  of  the  opinion  in  the  case 
of  the  Florida  was  finished  on  the  22d,  and  the  Tribunal 
adjourned  to  the  25th. 

Upon  the  reassembly  of  the  arbitrators,  Baron  d’lta- 
juba  called  on  the  British  counsel  for  a statement  or  an 
argument  on  the  questions  of  due  diligence,  and  of  the 
effect  of  commissions  held  by  Confederate  war  vessels 
which  had  entered  British  ports,  and  of  the  legitimacy 
of  coal  supplies  to  Confederate  vessels  in  British  ports. 
Of  course  the  counsel  of  the  United  States  would  be 
permitted  to  reply. 

The  Tribunal  approved  the  proposition,  and  then 
proceeded  to  the  case  of  the  Alabama.  The  Arbitrators 
The  decision  agree^  unanimously  in  their  views  of  this 
in  the  case  of  case,  holding  the  Government  of  Great  Brit- 

the  Alabama.  . “ 

am  guilty  of  a lack  of  due  diligence.  The 
case  of  the  tender  to  the  Alabama  was  viewed  in  the 
same  light. 

The  Tribunal  then  took  up  the  case  of  the  Shenan- 
doah. The  Arbitrators  were  unanimously  of  the  opinion 
in  this  case  that  the  British  Government  had 

Thedecision  . . . 

in  the  case  of  not  failed  in  due  diligence  anterior  to  the 
doah , and  time  when  the  vessel  entered  the  port  of 
other  veeBeiB.  y£ep)0urne>  On  the  other  hand,  three  of  the 

Arbitrators,  Count  Sclopis,  Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Staem- 
pfli,  held  that  the  British  Government  was  responsible 
for  all  the  acts  of  this  vessel  committed  after  leaving 
Melbourne. 

In  regard  to  all  the  other  vessels  mentioned  in  the 
case  of  the  United  States,  excepting  only  the  Retribu- 
tion, the  Arbitrators  were  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that 
the  British  Government  had  not  failed  in  due  diligence 
in  the  discharge  of  its  duties  as  a neutral,  and  in  regard 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


317 


to  the  Retribution  three  of  the  five  Arbitrators  held  the 
like  opinion.  After  hearing  the  additional  arguments 
called  for,  the  Tribunal  closed  the  doors  on  the  26th  of 
August,  and,  without  the  presence  even  of  agents  or 
counsel,  deliberated  upon  the  momentous  questions  sub- 
mitted to  it.  On  the  9th  of  September  the  decision  was 
adopted.  The  Tribunal  then  adjourned  to  the  14th, 
upon  which  day  the  decision  was  to  be  proclaimed  to  the 
world. 

The  public  session  of  the  Tribunal  on  the  14th  was  a 
solemn  and  an  imposing  affair  with  nothing  to  mar  the 
satisfaction  of  those  who  participated  in  it,  except  the 
discourtesy  of  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  who  not  only 
kept  the  assembly  waiting  for  his  appearance  long  past 
the  appointed  hour,  but  departed  with  unseemly  haste 
at  the  close  of  the  valedictory  pronounced  by  the  presi- 
dent, Count  Sclopis. 

The  award  followed  the  line  of  the  opinions  already 
recited.  It  convicted  the  British  Government  of  a lack 
of  due  diligence  in  the  discharge  of  its  neutral  duties  in 
the  cases  of  the  Alabama  and  the  Florida  and  their  re- 
spective tenders,  and  also  in  the  case  of  the  Shenandoah 
from  the  time  she  left  the  port  of  Melbourne,  but  exon- 
erated it  in  all  other  cases. 

The  award  also  repeated  the  decision  announced  by 
Count  Sclopis,  on  the  19th  of  June,  excluding  the 
claims  for  national  and  indirect  damages,  and  then  fixed 
the  amount  due  to  the  United  States  from  Great  Britain 
in  the  gross  sum  of  “ fifteen  millions  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars  in  gold,  as  the  indemnity  to  be  paid  by 
Great  Britain  to  the  United  States  for  the  satisfaction 
of  all  the  claims  referred  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Tribunal.”  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn  refused  to  sign  the 
award,  and  filed  a statement  of  his  reasons  for  his  dis- 
sent. The  other  four  members  of  the  Tribunal  signed 


318 


RECONSTRUCTION 


it,  and  as  the  majority  rule  had  been  provided  for  in 
the  Treaty,  both  of  the  high  contracting  parties  were 
duly  bound,  and  so  regarded  themselves. 

As  to  principles  decided  by  the  entire  procedure  of  the 
commissioners  and  of  their  Governments  in  the  forma- 
internation-  tion  the  Treaty,  and  of  the  Arbitrators  in 
settled  by Pthe  making  the  award,  we  may  say,  first,  that  all 
Geneva Tnbu-  questions  of  damages  resulting  from  the  lack 
of  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  a neutral 
in  the  fulfilment  of  the  duties  of  neutrality  were  re- 
garded as  proper  subjects  for  arbitration,  and  that  the 
determination  of  the  question  whether  the  claims  pre- 
sented, or  any  of  them,  are  a good  foundation  for  an 
award  of  compensation  was  also  regarded  as  a proper 
question  for  arbitration  ; second,  that  due  diligence  to 
be  exercised  by  neutral  governments  is  diligence  “ in 
exact  proportion  to  the  risks  to  which  either  of  the 
belligerents  may  be  exposed  from  a failure  to  fulfil  the 
obligations  of  neutrality  on  their  part  ” ; third,  that  the 
fact  that  a commission  was  only  subsequently  given  by 
a belligerent  to  a vessel  constructed,  equipped  or  armed 
for  the  belligerent  in  the  port  of  the  neutral  does  not 
heal  the  violation  of  the  duties  of  neutrality  by  the 
neutral  in  not  using  due  diligence  to  prevent  such  con- 
struction, equipment  or  armament  in  its  ports  ; fourth, 
that  the  privilege  of  ex- territoriality  accorded  to  vessels 
of  war  can  never  be  appealed  to  for  the  protection  of 
acts  done  in  violation  of  neutrality  ; fifth,  that  no  neutral 
can  excuse  itself  from  the  due  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
neutrality  on  account  of  imperfections  in  its  own  laws 
and  government ; and  sixth,  that  the  cost  to  the  bellig- 
erent of  pursuing  vessels,  which  have  been  enabled  to 
operate  against  the  belligerent  on  account  of  the  dere- 
liction of  the  neutral,  and  all  indirect  loss  resulting 
therefrom,  do  not  constitute  a “ good  foundation  for  an 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


319 


award  of  compensation  or  computation  of  damages  be- 
tween nations/’ 

Two  other  questions  of  great  importance  were  placed 
in  course  of  solution  by  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  One 
was  the  contention  between  the  two  high 
contracting  parties  concerning  the  boundary  west  boundary 
line  between  the  United  States  and  British  queetion- 
Columbia  from  the  point  where  the  forty-ninth  parallel 
of  north  latitude  intersects  the  middle  of  the  channel 
which  separates  the  continent  from  Vancouver’s  Island 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  contention  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain  was  that  this  line  should  run,  according 
to  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of  June  15th,  1846, 
through  the  Rosario  Straits,  and  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  that  it  should  run  through  the  Canal  de 
Haro.  The  high  contracting  parties  agreed,  in  the 
thirty-fourth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  to 
submit  this  question  to  the  arbitration  and  award  of  His 
Majesty  the  German  Emperor,  whose  decision  thereon 
should  be  final  and  without  appeal.  The  German  Em- 
peror, William  I.,  accepted  this  duty;  and  on  the  21st 
of  October,  1872,  announced  his  award,  upholding  the 
contention  of  the  United  States. 

The  other  question  was  that  which  related  to  the 
common  rights  of  fishing  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  citizens 
and  subjects  of  the  two  high  contracting  The  Fisher_ 
parties  along  the  Atlantic  coast.  The  eigh-  ies  <inesti°n- 
teenth  article  of  the  Treaty  provided  that  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  United  States  should  have  for  the  term  of 
twelve  years,  in  common  with  the  subjects  of  Her  Bri- 
tannic Majesty,  the  right  to  take  sea  fish  “ of  every  kind, 
except  shell-fish,  on  the  sea-coasts  and  shores,  and  in 
the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks,  of  the  Provinces  of  Que- 
bec, Nova  Scotia,  and  New  Brunswick,  and  the  colony 
of  Prince  Edward’s  Island,  and  of  the  several  islands 


320 


RECONSTRUCTION 


thereunto  adjacent,  without  being  restricted  to  any  dis- 
tance from  the  shore,  with  permission  to  land  upon  the 
said  coasts  and  shores  and  islands,  and  also  upon  the 
Magdalen  Islands,  for  the  purpose  of  drying  their  nets 
and  curing  their  fish.”  By  article  nineteenth  the  same 
right  was  accorded  to  British  subjects,  in  common  with 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  along  “ the  eastern 
sea-coasts  and  shores  of  the  United  States  north  of  the 
thirty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  and  on  the  shores 
of  the  several  islands  adjacent  thereunto,  and  in  the  bays, 
harbors  and  creeks  of  the  said  sea-coasts  and  shores  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  said  islands.”  Finally,  by 
article  twenty-first  free  trade  between  Canada  and  Prince 
Edward’s  Island  and  the  United  States  in  the  produce 
of  their  respective  sea-fisheries  was  established. 

The  contention  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  in  regard 
to  this  subject  was  that  the  rights  and  privileges  ac- 
corded to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  these 
articles  were  more  valuable  than  those  conceded  to  the 
subjects  of  Great  Britain  by  the  United  States,  and  that 
a sum  of  money  should  be  paid  to  Great  Britain  by  the 
United  States  in  offset  thereof.  The  United  States 
denied  the  British  assumption,  and  the  two  high  con- 
tracting parties  agreed,  in  the  twenty-third  article  of 
the  Treaty,  to  leave  this  matter  to  the  arbi- 
co^m mission  tration  and  award  of  three  commissioners, 
one  to  be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  one  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  and  a third 
by  the  President  and  the  Queen  conjointly,  provided 
they  could  agree  upon  a person  within  three  months 
from  the  date  when  the  Treaty  should  take  effect  and, 
if  not,  then  by  the  Austro-Hungarian  Ambassador  at 
the  Court  of  St.  James. 

The  President  named,  as  the  representative  of  the 
United  States,  the  Hon.  Ensign  H.  Kellogg.  The  Queen 


INTEENATIONAL  EELATIONS 


321 


appointed,  as  her  representative,  Sir  Alexander  T.  Galt. 
And  the  two  high  contracting  parties  not  being  able  to 
agree  upon  the  third  member  of  the  commission,  the 
Austro  - Hungarian  Ambassador  to  the  Queen  named 
Maurice  Delfosse,  the  Belgian  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
to  the  United  States.  Delfosse  had  been  proposed  by 
the  British  Government  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  as  the  third  commissioner,  and  the  President  had 
objected  to  him  as  being  the  representative  of  a country 
whose  interests  were  too  nearly  allied  with  those  of  Great 
Britain.  It  was  naturally  understood  by  the  President 
that  this  had  disposed  of  Delfosse,  and  the  Government 
at  Washington  was  taken  by  surprise  when  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  Ambassador  at  London,  Count  Beust,  made 
it  manifest  that  he  should  name  Mr.  Delfosse.  Mr. 
Fish,  the  Secretary  of  State,  with  true  diplomatic  in- 
stinct, immediately  accommodated  himself,  however,  to 
the  situation,  and  congratulated  Delfosse  upon  his  ap- 
pointment. Count  Beust  announced  the  choice  of  Del- 
fosse on  the  2d  of  March,  1877,  nearly  six  years  after 
the  Washington  Treaty  was  negotiated  and  signed, 
during  which  period  the  fisheries  of  Newfoundland  were 
brought  under  the  same  agreements  as  those  of  Canada, 
Prince  Edward's  Island,  and  the  United  States  above  the 
thirty-ninth  parallel.  The  Commission  finally  met  at 
Halifax  in  the  latter  half  of  the  year  1877  and  on  Novem- 
ber 23d,  1877,  made  its  award,  sustaining  by  a vote  of 
two  to  one  the  contention  of  Great  Britain,  and  adjudg- 
ing that  the  United  States  Government  should  pay  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain  the  sum  of  five  millions 
five  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  gold. 

The  representative  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Kel- 
logg, dissented  from  the  decision  ; and  it  was  felt  in  the 
United  States  that  the  Government  had  been  over- 
reached in  the  matter.  Considerable  delay  in  the  pay- 


322 


RECONSTRUCTION 


ment  of  the  amount  thus  resulted,  and  some  contro- 
versy over  it  with  Great  Britain  occurred.  But  finally, 
on  November  21st,  1878,  the  draft  for  the  amount  was 
delivered  to  the  British  Government  by  Mr.  Welsh, 
the  Minister  of  the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  St. 
James. 

Two  other  events  of  an  international  character  hap- 
pened within  the  decade  between  1867  and  1877  to 
which  brief  reference  should  be  made,  viz.,  the  Chi- 
nese Treaty  of  1868,  and  the  strong  and  persistent 
attempt  of  President  Grant  to  bring  Santo  Domingo 
under  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States. 

In  1861  Anson  Burlingame,  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  and  a resident  of  Massachusetts,  was  sent  as 
Minister  of  the  United  States  to  China.  He 
game  Treaty  was  a diplomatist  of  much  skill,  and  he  suc- 
with  china.  ceede(j  jn  making  such  a deep  impression 
upon  the  Emperor  of  China  that  the  latter,  on  his  resig- 
nation as  Minister  of  the  United  States  to  China  in  1867, 
made  him  Envoy  Extraordinary  from  China  to  the 
United  States  and  the  European  states  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  treaties  of  amity  and  commerce  between 
China  and  the  states  of  the  civilized  world.  He  came 
immediately  to  the  United  States  and  negotiated  with 
Mr.  Seward,  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United 
States,  the  Treaty  of  July  28th,  1868,  whereby  freedom 
of  emigration  and  immigration  between  China  and  the 
United  States  was  established,  upon  the  principle  of 
the  “ inherent  and  inalienable  right  of  man  to  change 
his  home  and  allegiance  ” expressly  subscribed  to  by 
the  United  States  and  China  in  the  Treaty  ; the  resi- 
dence of  Chinese  consuls  in  the  ports  of  the  United 
States,  with  the  same  privileges  and  immunities  as 
the  British  and  Russian  consuls  enjoyed  in  said  ports, 
was  agreed  to  ; and  freedom  of  religion  for  citizens  of 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


323 


the  United  States  in  China,  and  Chinese  converts  to 
the  Christian  religion  in  China,  and  for  Chinese  sub- 
jects in  the  United  States,  was  mutually  pledged.  This 
Treaty  was  heralded  at  the  time  as  being  an  im- 
mense advance  in  bringing  China  into  close  sympathy 
with  modern  civilization.  But  very  soon  the  “labor 
element,”  as  it  assumes  to  call  itself,  in  the  United 
States,  began  to  find  fault  with  the  liberal  provisions 
upon  the  subject  of  emigration  and  immigration,  and 
has  succeeded  in  forcing  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  back  from  its  ideal  position  to  the  old  ground  of 
national  exclusiveness.  The  example  set  by  the  United 
States  has  been  accepted  by  the  Chinese  Government  as 
a justification  of  its  old  methods,  and  as  an  excuse  for 
dropping  back  into  them  in  great  measure. 

At  the  moment  of  General  Grant’s  accession  to  the 
presidency  there  was  civil  commotion  in  the  Dominican 
Republic.  Buenaventura  Baez  was  the  legal  The  attempt 
President  of  the  Republic,  but  he  had  lost  Dominican 
the  support  of  a very  large  proportion  of  theP  united 
the  population,  who  were  following  a leader  States- 
named  Cabral.  Cabral  and  his  party  were  so  strong  that 
Baez  feared  the  overthrow  of  his  government,  and  sought 
to  avert  it  by  proposing  annexation  to  the  United  States. 

In  July  of  1869,  President  Grant  sent  General  Orville 
E.  Babcock  to  Santo  Domingo  with  written  instructions 
from  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Fish,  to  inquire  into  the 
political  situation  there  and  into  the  value  and  resources 
of  the  country.  Babcock,  terming  himself  aide-de-camp 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  succeeded  some- 
how or  other  in  so  impressing  his  importance  and 
authority  upon  the  willing  Baez  and  his 

, , J , 1 , „ 6 , . The  Treaty. 

confederates  as  to  move  them  to  sign  a treaty 

for  the  annexation  of  the  Dominican  Republic  to  the 

United  States.  It  appears  that  he  pledged  the  Presi- 


324 


RECONSTRUCTION 


dent  of  the  United  States  to  use  privately  all  his  influ- 
ence with  the  members  of  Congress  for  the  ratification 
of  the  Treaty. 

On  the  10th  of  January,  1870,  President  Grant  sent 
this  proposed  Treaty  to  the  Senate  for  ratification.  He 
The  Treaty  musthave  thought  that  there  would  be  no  dif- 
Senatere  the  ficul4y  iii  securing  for  it  the  approval  of  that 
body,  for  his  message  was  only  three  lines 
in  length  and  contained  no  argument.  It  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  and  it  soon  be- 
came manifest  that  a serious  opposition  to  ratification 
was  developing  itself.  The  President  now  procured 
from  the  Dominican  representative  at  Washington  an 
agreement  to  an  extension  of  the  time  for  ratification,  and 
in  communicating  this  to  the  Senate  on  May  31st  he 
went  into  an  argument  in  support  of  the  proposed  treaty. 
He  said,  among  other  things,  that  the  acquisition  of  this 
country  would  cut  off  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars’ 
worth  of  the  imports  of  the  United  States  and  largely 
increase  its  exports,  and  would  thus  enable  the  United 
States  to  extinguish  its  large  debt  abroad  ; that  it  would 
give  the  United  States  military  command  of  the  en- 
trance to  the  Caribbean  Sea  and  “ the  Isthmus  transit 
of  commerce  ” ; and  that  it  was  necessary  in  order  to 
maintain  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  He  declared  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Santo  Domingo  yearned  “ for  the  protec- 
tion of  our  free  institutions  and  laws,  and  our  progress 
and  civilization.”  And  he  affirmed  that  he  had  infor- 
mation that  a European  Power  was  standing  ready  to 
offer  two  millions  of  dollars  for  the  possession  of  Samana 
Bay  alone.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  another  mes- 
sage of  a President  of  the  United  States  which  con- 
tained an  equal  amount  of  such  extravagant  nonsense. 

The  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  thoroughly  sifted 
the  subject,  and  recommended  that  the  proposed  Treaty 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


325 


be  not  ratified,  and  the  Senate,  despite  the  influence  of 
the  Administration,  sustained  the  Committee.  This 
action  of  the  Senate  occurred  on  the  30th  of  It8  rejec- 
June.  The  President  was  surprised,  mor-  tlon 
tified  and  indignant.  He  was  especially  angry  with  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  Senator 
Sumner,  and  was  from  that  moment  determined  to 
oust  Sumner  from  that  position. 

In  his  next  annual  message,  that  of  December  5th, 
1870,  he  took  up  the  matter  again,  went  over  all  of  his 
old  arguments  expressed  in  even  more  extrav-  The  Presi- 
agant  language  than  before,  and  added  the  hTjenew  ^e- 
prophecy  that  if  the  United  States  did  not  eotijtions- 
take  Santo  Domingo,  European  nations  would  acquire 
the  Bay  of  Samana  and  create  there  a great  commercial 
city  to  which  the  United  States  would  become  tributary 
without  receiving  corresponding  benefits,  and  that  then 
the  folly  of  the  rejection  of  so  great  a prize  by  the 
United  States  would  be  recognized.  He  then  asked 
Congress  to  authorize  him  to  appoint  a commission  to 
negotiate  a treaty  with  the  authorities  of  Santo  Domingo 
for  its  annexation  to  the  United  States,  and  suggested 
that  the  treaty  so  negotiated  might  be  ratified  by  a joint 
resolution  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  instead  of  by 
the  Senate  alone. 

These  recommendations  and  suggestions  and  the  lan- 
guage in  which  they  were  expressed  were  felt  to  be  most 
exasperating  by  those  Senators  and  Represent-  The  m 
atives  who  opposed  the  President’s  scheme,  mittee  of  in- 
and  the  President’s  supporters  saw  quickly  qmry' 
that  Congress  would  not  sanction  any  such  measure  as 
he  proposed.  In  place  of  it.  Senator  Morton,  of  Indiana, 
offered  in  the  Senate  a resolution  to  empower  the  Pres- 
ident to  appoint  a commission,  composed  of  three  per- 
sons, to  go  to  Santo  Domingo  and  inquire  into  the  politi- 


326 


RECONSTRUCTION 


cal  situation  and  the  resources  of  the  country.  This 
resolution  finally  passed  under  strong  opposition,  and 
the  House  of  Representatives  concurred  in  it  with  the 
proviso,  which  the  Senate  accepted,  that  the  resolution 
should  not  be  construed  as  committing  Congress  in  any 
manner  or  degree  to  the  policy  of  annexing  Santo  Do- 
mingo to  the  United  States. 

The  President  appointed  as  commissioners  Benjamin 
The  report  Wa(le,  Andrew  D.  White  and  Samuel  G. 
miesioners111 ' Howe.  These  gentlemen  proceeded  to  Santo 
Domingo,  made  their  inquiries,  and  furnished 
the  President  with  a report  sustaining  his  views  and 
recommendations. 

On  the  5th  of  April,  1871,  the  President  submitted 
this  report  to  Congress,  accompanied  by  a message  which 
contained  a justification  of  his  own  conduct  in  the  whole 
matter,  and  an  attack  upon  those  who  opposed  his  policy 
of  annexation,  especially  upon  Senator  Sumner.  It 
was  a very  undignified,  not  to  say  puerile,  document,  and 
u ought  never  to  have  been  written,  much  less 
rionment  of  sent.  It  revealed,  however,  the  fact  that 

the  scheme. 

the  President  understood  at  last  that  he 
must  abandon  his  pet  scheme.  He  did  it,  however, 
with  a very  bad  grace,  and  in  his  last  annual  message 
he  repeated  for  the  third  time  his  old  arguments  in 
favor  of  his  miserable  project,  “ not,”  he  said,  “ as  a 
recommendation  for  a renewal  of  the  subject  of  annexa- 
tion,” but  in  vindication  of  his  conduct  in  regard  to  it. 
It  is  needless  to  add  that  none  of  his  fearful  predictions 
about  European  occupation  of  Santo  Domingo,  in  case 
the  United  States  should  fail  to  seize  it,  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  have  come  to  pass.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  attained  an  al- 
most monstrous  growth  which  at  times  appears  as  likely 
to  threaten  as  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  two  Amer- 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS 


327 


icas,  and  the  poor  little  Dominican  Kepublic,  which 
was  incapable  of  self-government,  still  exists  and  seems 
to  be  bettering  its  condition  by  its  own  efforts,  while 
the  great  European  city  in  the  Bay  of  Samana,  to  which 
the  United  States  was  to  become  tributary,  has  not  even 
the  substance  of  a mirage  in  the  waters  upon  which  the 
vast  marines  of  the  world  were  to  ride  in  approaching 
its  docks  and  landings.  Such  has  been  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecy  upon  which  was  based  the  supposed 
necessity  of  expansion  beyond  the  seas  ! 


I 


* 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Josiah  G.,  on  electoral 
commission,  286 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  joins  liber- 
al republicans,  264  ; candidate  for 
presidential  nomination,  265  ; re- 
turns from  England,  303  ; at  Ge- 
neva arbitration,  311,  316 
Adams,  John  Q. , nominated  for  vice- 
presidency, 267 

Alabama,  in  Lincoln’s  proclamation, 
11  ; electoral  vote  of  1864  re- 
jected, 22  ; reconstruction  in,  37  ; 
convention  and  election  in,  38 ; 
vote  on  thirteenth  amendment,  55  ; 
in  the  reconstruction  bill,  112  ; reg- 
istration in,  146  ; election  in,  149; 
disfranchisements  in,  150 ; voting 
on  constitution,  151,  153,  197 ; 
act  on  admission  of  members  from, 
198  ; reconstruction  declared  com- 
plete, 202 ; ratifies  fourteenth 
amendment,  203,  204  ; republicans 
get  control  in,  268,  269  ; change  in 
character  of  government,  273 
Alabama , the,  case  of,  316,  317 
Alabama  claims,  307,  308,  316,  317 
Alaska,  purchase  of.  297-302 
Alexandria,  V a.,  Pierpont  govern- 
ment at,  13,  224 

Alta  Vela,  matter  of  claim  to,  177, 
178 

Ames,  Adelbert,  resigns  as  governor 
of  Mississippi,  275 
Anderson,  T.  C.,  in  Louisiana  poli- 
tics, 269 

Arkansas,  in  Lincoln’s  proclamation, 
11;  Lincoln’s  acts  toward,  12; 
presidential  reconstruction  in,  15  ; 
congressmen  refused  seats,  15  ; in 
Lincoln’s  message,  19 ; electoral 
vote  of  1864  rejected,  22 ; attitude 
of  Johnson  to,  38 ; vote  on  thir- 
teenth amendment,  55;  in  the 
reconstruction  bill,  112;  registra- 
tion in,  147  ; election  in.  149  ; dis- 
franchisements in,  150 ; ratifies 


constitution,  155,  197 ; ratifies 
fourteenth  amendment,  197 ; act 
of  June,  1868,  as  to,  198,  199,  201  ; 
reconstruction  declared  complete, 
202 ; ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 ; change  in  char- 
acter of  government,  273 

Ashburn,  George  W.,  in  convention 
of  1866,  100 

Ashley,  James  M. , action  on  thir- 
teenth amendment,  29 

Austin,  Tex. , convention  at,  229 

Babcock,  Orville  E.,  mission  to 
Santo  Domingo,  323 

Baez,  Buenaventura,  in  Dominican 
politics,  323 

Baird,  Absalom,  New  Orleans  riot, 
94-97 

Baltimore,  Md. , republican  conven- 
tion at,  20 ; democratic  conven- 
tion at,  266 

Banks,  Nathaniel  P. , appoints  elec- 
tion in  Louisiana,  14 ; views  on 
purchase  of  Alaska,  306 

Bayard,  Thomas  F.,  on  electoral 
commission,  286 

Bell,  John,  desertion  of  the  Union 
cause,  221 

Benton.  Thomas  H. , in  convention 
of  1866,  100 

Bernard,  Mountague,  on  Joint  High 
Commission,  307 

Beust,  Count,  names  Delfosse  for 
Halifax  commission,  321 

Bingham.  John  A.,  on  joint  commit- 
tee on  reconstruction,  57  ; on  im- 
peachment committee,  174  ; im- 
peachment manager,  175  ; approves 
letter  on  Alta  Vela  claims,  177 ; 
offers  amendment  as  to  Georgia, 
242 

Black,  Jeremiah  S.,  counsel  for 
Johnson,  176  ; his  withdrawal,  177, 
178 ; counsel  before  electoral  com- 
mission, 291 


330 


INDEX 


Blaine,  James  G.,  proposes  amend- 
ment to  reconstruction  bill,  115, 
11(5;  approves  letter  on  Alta  Vela 
claims,  177 ; in  convention  of  187(5, 
281  ; views  on  purchase  of  Alaska, 
300 

Blair,  Francis  P.,  nominated  for 
vice-presidency,  til  1 ; conduct  in 
the  campaign,  211,  212 
Blair,  Montgomery,  in  convention  of 
180(5,99;  counsel  before  electoral 
commission,  291 

Blow,  Henry  T. , on  joint  committee 
on  reconstruction,  57 
Borie,  Adolph  E. , becomes  secretary 
of  the  navy,  231  ; resigns,  232 
Botts,  John  Minor,  in  convention  of 
1866,  100 

Boutwell,  George  S. , on  joint  com- 
mittee on  reconstruction,  57 ; on 
impeachment  committee,  174  ; im- 
peachment manager,  175  ; becomes 
secretary  of  the  treasury,  232 
Bradley,  Joseph  P. , on  electoral 
commission,  289 

Brodhead,  James  O. , letter  from  F. 
P.  Blair,  211 

Brown,  B.  Gratz,  joins  liberal  repub- 
licans, 264 ; nominated  for  vice- 
presidency, 265,  296 
Browning,  Orville  H.,  enters  cabinet, 
90;  in  convention  of  1866,  99 
Brownlow,  William  G. , elected  gov- 
ernor of  Tennessee,  25  ; in  conven- 
tion of  1866,  100 

Bullock,  Rufus  B. , share  in  recon- 
struction of  Georgia,  237-239,  241, 
244 

Burlingame,  Anson,  treaty  with 
China,  322 

Butler,  Benjamin  F. , impeachment 
manager,  175  ; signs  letter  on  Alta 
Vela  claim,  177  ; attack  on  John- 
son, 181  ; proposes  bill  as  to  Geor- 
gia, 240 ; withdraws  his  amend- 
ment, 242 

Cabral,  in  Dominican  politics,  323 
Cameron,  Simon,  in  convention  of 
1866,  100 

Campbell,  James,  in  convention  of 
1866,  99 

Campbell,  John  A.,  counsel  before 
electoral  commission,  291 
Canada,  the  fisheries  question,  320- 
322 


Canby,  Edward  R.  S.,  supersedes 
Sickles,  143 

Carpenter,  Matthew  H.,  counsel  be- 
fore electoral  commission,  291 
Carpenter,  testimony  as  to  Ku-Klux, 
259 

Cartter,  David  K.,  action  in  case 
against  Thomas,  171,  172,  174 
Cartwright,  J.  C. , Oregon  elector  of 
1876,291 

Chamberlain,  Daniel  H.,  as  govern- 
or of  South  Carolina,  274  ; retires 
from  the  office,  296 
Chandler,  Zachariah,  in  convention 
of  1866,  100 ; manages  campaign 
for  Hayes,  283 

Chase,  Salmon  P. , presides  at  im- 
peachment of  Johnson,  176;  rul- 
ings, 181  ; puts  final  question,  191  ; 

’ candidate  for  presidential  nomina- 
tion, 210 

Cherokee  Nation  vs.  Georgia  (5  Pe- 
ters 1),  144 

Chicago,  111.,  democratic  conven- 
tion at,  207 ; republican  conven- 
tion of  1868,  207 

China,  the  Burlingame  treaty,  322 
Cincinnati,  O.,  liberal  republican 
convention  at,  265;  republican 
convention  of  1876,  280 
Civil  Rights,  state  legislation  on,  45- 
52,  62  ; bill  on,  in  Congress,  68-70  ; 
the  bill  criticised,  71  ; bill  passed 
over  veto,  73 

Clarendon,  Earl  of,  treaty  negotiated 
with  Johnson,  303 
Clements,  White  vs.,  237 
Cleveland.  O. , radical  republican 
convention  at,  20  ; soldier  conven- 
tion at,  101 

Clifford,  Nathan,  on  electoral  com- 
mission, 286 

Cochrane,  John,  nominated  for  vice- 
presidency, 20 ; withdraws,  21 
Cockburn,  Alexander,  at  Geneva  ar- 
bitration, 311,  315,  317 
Coke,  Richard,  elected  governor  of 
Texas,  249,  273 

Colfax,  Schuyler,  elected  Speaker, 
42 ; appoints  committee  on  im- 
peachment, 174 ; nominated  for 
vice-presidency,  207  ; character  of 
acceptance,  208 

Columbia,  S.  C.,  made  head-quar- 
ters of  second  military  district, 
135 


INDEX 


331 


Committee  of  the  House  on  Elec- 
tions, Georgia  case  referred  to,  223 

Committee  of  the  House  on  Impeach- 
ment, appointed,  174  ; proceed- 
ings, 175  et  seq. 

Committee  of  the  House  on  Recon- 
struction, reports  bill,  112 ; bill 
passed,  117  ; Covode  resolution  re- 
ferred to,  171 ; reports  impeach- 
ment resolution,  173 ; reports  bill 
as  to  Georgia,  240 

Committee  of  the  House  on  the  Ju- 
diciary, action  as  to  thirteenth 
amendment,  28 ; Blaine  moves 
reference  to,  116 

Committee  of  the  House  on  the  Re- 
bellious States,  15 

Committee  of  the  Senate  on  Elec- 
tions, Georgia  case  referred  to,  223 

Committee  of  the  Senate  on  Finance, 
bill  reported  from,  277 

Committee  of  the  Senate  on  Foreign 
Relations,  Sumner  loses  chair- 
manship of,  264 ; opposes  Domini- 
can treaty,  324,  325 

Committee  of  the  Senate  on  the  Ju- 
diciary, action  as  to  thirteenth 
amendment,  26-28 ; proposes 
Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill,  64  ; re- 
ports a civil  rights  bill,  68  ; action 
on  bill  repealing  Tenure-of-Office 
Act,  233 

Committee  of  the  Senate  on  the  Re- 
bellious States,  15 

Congress  of  the  United  States,  power 
vested  in,  3 ; action  on  State  per- 
durance,  5 ; power  over  territories, 
6 ; relation  of  its  acts  to  Recon- 
struction, 12 ; legislation  on  Re- 
construction, 15  ; action  as  to  elec- 
toral vote  of  1864,  21,  22  ; twenty- 
second  joint  rule,  24,  25  ; attitude 
to  Tennessee,  26  ; meeting  of  De- 
cember, 1865,40;  Johnson’s  views 
of  powers  of,  41  ; demand  of  south- 
erners for  seats,  56  ; joint  com- 
mittee on  reconstruction,  57,  58 ; 
passes  Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill, 
66  ; passes  civil  rights  bill,  70,  73  ; 
the  fourteenth  amendment,  74-79 ; 
proposal  of  committee  on  recon- 
struction, 80 ; reports  to,  on  recon- 
struction, 84-86  ; passage  of  Freed- 
men’s Bureau  bill,  87-90 ; relation 
to  campaign  of  1866,  98  ; attacked 
by  Johnson,  102  ; effect  of  election 


of  1866,  104  ; effect  of  Johnson’s 
message  on,  105  ; passes  bill  for 
negro  suffrage  in  District  of  Colum- 
bia, 107,  108  ; bill  vetoed,  107,  108 ; 
bill  passed  over  veto,  109;  vetoes 
sent  to,  126 ; encroachment  on 
President’s  power,  128 ; passes 
supplemental  reconstruction  bill, 
129 ; opening  of  fortieth  Con- 
gress, 132 ; passes  bill  interpreting 
Reconstruction  Acts,  140  ; passes 
bill  over  veto,  142  ; as  to  powers  of, 
147  ; attitude  of  southern  whites  to 
acts  of,  149;  additional  bill  as  to 
reconstructed  States,  152,  153; 

comment  on  the  act,  154;  message 
to,  of  December,  1867, 158-160  ; ad- 
mission of  Southern  members,  198, 
202 ; action  on  proclamation  of 
fourteenth  amendment,  204  ; fric- 
tion with  Johnson,  214;  annual 
message  to,  214 ; action  on  fif- 
teenth amendment,  217 ; question 
as  to  southern  members,  223,  225  ; 
admits  members  from  Virginia, 
228 ; passes  modification  of  Ten- 
ure-of-Office Act,  234 ; readmission 
of  Georgia,  235-244  ; attitude  to 
the  South,  248 ; bill  to  enforce  the 
amendments,  253-255  ; control  of 
elections  to,  256 ; statute  on  the 
Ku-Klux,  257,  258  ; legislation  on 
finance,  276-279  ; electoral  count 
of  1877,  283,  284  ; bill  for  electoral 
commission,  284,  285 ; action  as  to 
Santo  Domingo,  326.  See  House 
of  Representatives  ; Senate  ; 
Statutes  of  the  United  States 
Conkling,  Roscoe,  on  joint  com- 
mittee on  reconstruction,  57 ; in 
convention  of  1876,  281 
Connecticut  ratifies  fourteenth 
amendment,  203,  204 
Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
government  provided  by  the,  2-4  ; 
relation  of  State  government  to,  5, 
6 ; powers  of  Congress  over  elec- 
tions, 22  ; eligibility  to  vice-presi- 
dency, 23,  24  ; adoption  of  the 
thirteenth  amendment,  26-30,  55  ; 
the  fourteenth  amendment,  73-80, 
82,  81 ; fourteenth  amendment  in 
the  campaign  of  1866,  98 ; four- 
teenth amendment  rejected  in 
South.  106,  109 ; fourteenth 

amendment  with  reference  to  re- 


332 


INDEX 


vival  of  State  functions,  110;  tests 
of,  applied  to  reconstruction  bill, 
113  ; in  reconstruction  bill,  120, 
121  ; interpreted  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  144 ; fourteenth  amend- 
ment ratified  in  Arkansas,  197  ; 
ratification  of  fourteenth  amend- 
ment completed,  202-205 ; action 
on  fifteenth  amendment,  21 7 ; fif- 
teenth amendment  ratified  by 
Georgia,  240  ; provision  for  en- 
forcement of  amendments,  253-255 

Covode,  John,  resolutions  on  John- 
son, 171 

Cowan,  Edgar,  action  on  the  Stevens 
-esolution,  57 ; in  convention  of 
1866,  99 

Cox,  Jacob  D.,  in  Pittsburg  conven- 
tion, 102 ; becomes  secretary  of 
the  interior,  231 

Creswell,  John  A J. , in  convention 
of  1866,  100;  becomes  postmaster- 
general,  231 

Cronin,  E.  A.,  Oregon  elector  in 
1876,  290,  291 

Curtin,  A.  G. , in  convention  of  1866, 
100 

Curtis,  Benjamin  R. , counsel  for 
Johnson,  176;  argument,  182,  183 

Cushing,  Caleb,  at  Geneva  arbitra- 
tion, 311 

Custer,  George  A.,  in  Cleveland 
convention,  101 

Davis,  David,  joins  liberal  repub- 
licans, 264 ; candidate  for  presi- 
dential nomination,  265  ; elected 
Senator,  287  ; relation  to  electoral 
commission,  288 

Davis,  Henry  Winter,  bill  on  recon- 
struction, 15-18;  protest  against 
Lincoln’s  proclamation,  19 

Davis,  J.  C.  Bancroft,  at  Geneva 
arbitration,  311 

Delaware,  in  election  of  1866,  104  ; 
votes  for  Seymour,  212 

Delfosse,  Maurice,  on  Halifax  com- 
mission, 321 

Dennison,  William,  resignation,  90, 
142 

District  of  Columbia,  bill  for  negro 
suffrage  in,  107  ; bill  vetoed,  108; 
bill  passed  over  veto.  109  ; bill  on 
colored  schools  in,  216 

Dix,  John  A.,  in  convention  of  1866, 
99 


Dixon,  James,  action  on  the  Stevens 
resolution,  57 ; vote  on  impeach- 
ment, 191 

Doolittle,  James  R. , action  on  the 
Stevens  resolution,  57  ; in  conven- 
tion of  1866,  99;  view  of  the  Stan- 
ton case,  189;  vote  on  impeach- 
ment, 191 

Drew,  George  F. , becomes  governor 
of  Florida,  296 

Duiant,  Thomas  J. , in  convention 
of  1866,  100 

Durell,  E.  H.,  in  Louisiana  politics, 
270,  271 

Edmunds,  George  F.,  on  electoral 
commission,  286 

Electoral  Commission,  creation,  284, 
285  ; membership,  286-289  ; pro- 
ceedings, 290-293 

Emory,  W.  H. , relations  with  John- 
son, 175,  179,  181 

English,  James  E.,  in  convention 
of  1860,  99 

Evarts,  William  M. , counsel  for 
Johnson,  176;  counsel  before 
electoral  commission,  291  ; at 
Geneva  arbitration,  311 

Ewing,  Thomas,  in  Cleveland  con- 
vention, 101  ; nominated  as  sec- 
retary of  war,  173 

Farragut,  David  D.,  accompanies 
Johnson  to  the  West,  102 

Favrot,  Alexander,  at  Geneva  arbi- 
tration, 311 

Federal  government,  system  of, 
1,  2 

Ferry,  Thomas  W.,  announces  result 
of  1S76  election,  294 

Fessenden,  William  P. , on  joint 
committee  on  reconstruction,  57 ; 
theory  of  reconstruction,  60;  opin- 
ion on  impeachment,  184 ; view 
of  the  Stanton  case,  189  ; vote  on 
impeachment,  191 

Field,  Stephen  J. , on  electoral  com- 
mission, 286 

Fish,  Hamilton,  becomes  secretary 
of  state,  232 ; negotiations  with 
Great  Britain,  306,  307 ; contro- 
versy with  Granville,  312 ; con- 
gratulates Delfosse,  321 

Fisheries  Question,  the,  320-322 
l Flanders,  Benjamin  F. , elected  to 
House  of  Representatives,  14 


INDEX 


333 


Florida,  in  Lincoln’s  proclamation.  1 
11 ; electoral  vote  of  1864  rejested. 
22 ; reconstruction  in,  37  ; conven- 
tion in,  38 ; adopts  thirteenth 
amendment,  39  ; in  the  reconstruc- 
tion bill,  112  ; registration  in,  147  ; 
election  in,  149 ; ratifies  consti- 
tution, 155,  197  ; act  on  admission 
of  members  from,  198;  reconstruc- 
tion declared  complete,  202 ; rat- 
ifies fourteenth  amendment,  203, 
204  ; contest  as  to  election  returns 
of  1876,  283,  289  ; change  of  ad- 
ministration, 296 
Florida , the,  case  of,  315-317 
Fowler,  Joseph  S. , vote  on  impeach- 
ment, 191 

Freedmen’s  Bureau,  created,  44,  45  ; 
Grant’s  opinion  of  its  officers,  63  ; 
bill  of  1866,  64-67  ; bill  passed  over 
veto,  87-90.  See  Statutes  of  the 
United  States 

Frelinghuysen,  Frederick  T. , on 
electoral  commission,  286 
Fre'mont,  John  C.,  nominated  for 
presidency,  20  ; withdraws,  21 

Galt,  Alexander  T.,  on  Halifax 
commission,  321 

Garfield,  James  A.,  approves  letter 
on  Alta  Vela  claims,  177  ; on  elec- 
toral commission,  286 
Garland,  Augustus  H.,  elected  gov- 
ernor of  Arkansas,  273 
Geneva  Arbitration,  307,  308,  311— 
318 

Georgia,  in  Lincoln’s  proclamation, 
11 ; electoral  vote  of  1864  rejected, 
22 ; reconstruction  in,  37  ; conven- 
tion and  election  in,  33  ; vote  on 
thirteenth  amendment,  55  ; in  the 
reconstruction  bill,  112 ; case  of 
Georgia  vs.  Stanton,  146,  195 ; 
registration  in,  147 ; election  in, 
148  ; election  in.  149  ; ratifies  con- 
stitution, 155,  197  ; controversy  in, 
155  ; act  on  admission  of  members 
from,  198,  199 ; reconstruction  de- 
clared complete,  202 ; ratification 
of  fourteenth  amendment,  205 ; 
votes  for  Seymour,  212 ; question 
in  Congress  as  to  representation 
of,  224 ; question  of  representation 
of,  235-237 ; military  government 
in,  238,  239  ; fifteenth  amendment 
ratified,  240 ; admission  delayed, 


| 241 , 242 ; finally  restored  to  fed- 

eral relations,  243,  244  ; escape 
from  negro  rule,  247,  248  ; election 
of  1872  in,  267 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  in  convention  of, 
1866,  100 

Gillem,  A.  C.,  arrest  of  McCardle, 
196 

Granger,  Gordon,  in  Cleveland  con- 
vention, 101 

Grant,  Ulysses  S. , report  on  condi- 
tions at  the  South,  63 ; accom- 
panies Johnson  to  the  West,  102 
acting  Secretary  of  War,  143,  158; 
injunction  against  sought,  146;  ap- 
pointed acting  secretary  of  war, 
163;  his  action  thereon,  164,  165; 
relations  with  Johnson,  166—1 68 ; 
nominated  for  presidency,  207 ; 
character  of  acceptance,  208 ; at- 
titude to  reconstruction,  223; 
proclamation  as  to  V irgfrpa,  227 ; 
orders  as  to  Mississippi  and  Texas, 
229,  230 ; policy  characterized, 
230  , 231 ; attitude  to  Tenure-of- 
Office  Act,  231-234;  first  annual 
message,  234 ; suggestion  as  to 
Georgia,  235 ; message  of  March, 
1871,  257 ; proclamation  of  March, 
1871,  258;  proclamation  of  May, 
1871 , 259,  260 ; proclamations  of 
April  and  November,  1S71,  260, 
261  ; relations  with  Sumner,  264 ; 
nominated  for  second  term,  267  ; 
elected,  267  ; veto  of  inflation  bill, 
279;  messages  on  relations  with 
Great  Britain,  303-306 ; policy  as 
to  Santo  Domingo,  323-326 

Granville,  Lord,  controversy  with 
Fish,  312 

Great  Britain,  change  in  ministry, 
303  ; Grant’s  messages  on  relations 
with,  304-306  ; the  Geneva  arbi- 
tration, 307-318 ; the  British  Co- 
lumbia boundary,  319  ; the  fisheries 
question.  320-322 

Greeley,  Horace,  in  convention  of 
1866,  100 ; joins  liberal  republi- 
cans, 264 ; nominated  for  presi- 
dency, 265,  266  ; defeated,  267 

Green,  Ashbel,  counsel  before  elec- 
toral commission,  291 

Grey  and  Ripon,  Earl  de,  on  Joint 
High  Commission,  307 

Grider,  Henry,  on  joint  committee 
on  reconstruction,  57 


334 


INDEX 


Grimes,  James  W.,  on  joint  commit- 
tee on  reconstruction,  57 ; view  of 
the  Stanton  case,  189  ; vote  on  im- 
peachment, 191 

Groesbeck,  William  S. , counsel  for 
Johnson,  177 

Habeas  Corpus,  writ  of,  privileges 
suspended  in  District  of  Colum- 
bia, 39 

Hahn,  Michael,  elected  to  House  of 
Representatives,  14;  elected  Gov- 
ernor of  Louisiana,  14 
Halifax,  N.  S.,  fisheries  commission 
at,  390,  321 

Hamlin,  Hannibal,  count  of  electoral 
votes,  24 

Hampton,  Wade,  in  convention  of 
1868,  211 ; becomes  governor  of 
South  Carolina,  296 
Hancock,  Winfield  Scott,  supersedes 
Sheridan,  143 ; in  convention  of 
1868,  210 

Harlan,  James,  resignation,  90,  142 
Harris,  Ira,  on  joint  committee  on 
reconstruction,  57 

Hawley,  Joseph  R.,  in  republican 
convention  of  1866,  207 
Hayes,  Rutherford  B. , significance 
of  his  election,  279 ; nominated  for 
presidency,  281,  282 ; the  cam- 
paign, 283  et  seq.;  election  for- 
mally declared,  294  ; policy  toward 
the  South,  295,  296 
Henderson,  John  B. , introduces 
amendment  abolishing  slavery,  26, 
27  ; vote  on  impeachment,  191 
Hendricks,  Thomas  A.,  candidate 
for  presidential  nomination,  210; 
nominated  for  vice-presidency, 
282 

Herron,  Francis  J.,  in  Louisiana 
politics,  269,  270 

Higby,  William,  views  on  purchase 
of  Alaska,  300 

Hill,  Benjamin  H. , enters  Senate 
from  Georgia,  244 

Hoadly,  George,  joins  liberal  repub- 
licans, 264;  counsel  before  elec- 
toral commission,  291 
Hoar,  Ebenezer  R. , becomes  attor- 
ney-general, 231 ; on  Joint  High 
Commission,  307 

Hoar,  George  F. , on  electoral  com- 
mission, 286 

Hood,  John  B. , near  Nashville,  23 


House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  admits  members 
from  Louisiana,  14;  refuses  seats 
to  members  from  Arkansas,  15; 
action  on  thirteenth  amendment, 
28-30  ; elects  Colfax  Speaker,  42  ; 
the  Stevens  resolution,  43—44 ; 
speech  by  Stevens,  58 ; passes 
Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill,  66  ; passes 
civil  rights  bill,  73;  representation 
in,  74 ; election  of  1866,  98 ; 
effect  of  election  of  1866,  104 ; 
attempt  to  impeach  Johnson, 
109  ; bill  on  reconstruction  before 
the,  112-118;  resolution  cn  confis- 
cation act,  122;  tenure-of -office 
bill  in,  125  ; bill  on  reconstructed 
States,  153  ; action  on  dismissal  of 
Stanton,  171  ; proceedings  of  im- 
peachment against  Johnson,  173 
et  seq.;  passes  bill  repealing  Ten- 
ure-of-Office  Act,  232,  233 ; demo- 
crats secure  control  of,  253,  273  ; 
jurisdiction  over  treaties,  301,  302. 
See  Congress  of  the  United  States  ; 
Statutes  of  the  United  States 

Houston,  George  8.,  elected  governor 
of  Alabama,  273 

Howard,  Jacob  M.,  on  joint  com- 
mittee on  reconstruction,  57 ; ill- 
ness delays  vote  on  impeachment, 
190 

Howe,  Samuel  G. , commissioner  to 
Santo  Domingo,  326 

Hunt,  Ward,  289 

Hunton,  Eppa,  on  electoral  commis- 
sion, 286 

Illinois,  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204;  Davis  elected 
Senator  from,  287 

Indiana,  election  of  1886  in,  103; 
ratifies  fourteenth  amendment, 
203,  204  ; election  of  1872  in,  267 

Iowa,  election  of  1866  in,  103 ; rati- 
fies fourteenth  amendment,  203, 
204 

d’ltajuba,  Baron,  at  Geneva  arbitra- 
tion, 311,  316 

Jenkins,  Charles  J.  institutes  suit 
against  Stanton,  145 ; removed  by 
Meade,  155 

Johnson,  Andrew,  elected  vice-pres- 
ident, 21 ; calls  Tennessee  conven- 
tion, 23;  proclamation  of  Feb. 


INDEX 


335 


25, 1865,  25 ; becomes  president,  30 ; 
plan  and  acts  as  to  reconstruc- 
tion, 31-41  ; proclamation  of  May 
39,  1865,  33,  34;  identity  of  his 
plan  with  Lincoln’s,  36  ; proclaims 
federal  law  in  force  in  Virginia, 
31 ; proclamations  as  to  civil  gov- 
ernment, 39;  message  of  Dec., 

1865,  40  ; relation  to  congressional 
views  of  reconstruction,  61  ; sends 
Grant  and  Schurz  through  the 
South,  63  ; veto  of  Freedmen’s  Bu- 
reau bill,  66,  67 ; speech  of  Feb.  32, 

1866,  67  ; veto  of  civil  rights  bill, 
70,  71  ; effect  of  it,  73 ; veto  over- 
ridden. 73 ; as  to  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 80;  message  as  to  Tennessee, 
83  ; veto  of  Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill 
overridden,  88-90  ; relations  with 
Stanton,  90,  91  ; changes  in  cab- 
inet, 90;  relation  to  New  Orleans 
riot,  95,  96  ; endorsed  by  conven- 
tion of  1866,  99  ; criticized  by  con- 
ventions of  1866,  101,  163;  takes 
part  in  campaign  of  1866,  103 ; 
proclamation  declaring  war  ended, 
103;  message  of  Dec.,  1866,  104, 
105 ; vetoes  bill  as  to  negro  suf- 
frage in  District  of  Columbia,  107, 
103  ; bill  passed  over  his  veto,  109 ; 
first  attempt  at  impeachment,  109 ; 
vetoes  resolution  on  confiscation 
act,  132  ; influence  of  Seward  on, 
134 ; vetoes  reconstruction  bill  and 
tenure-of-officebill,  126 ; encroach- 
ment on  his  power,  138;  veto  of 
supplemental  reconstruction  bill, 
132,  133 ; orders  under  the  stat- 
utes, 135,  136,  138  ; vetoes  bill  in- 
terpreting reconstruction  acts,  140, 
141  ; distrust  of  Stanton,  140  ; veto 
overridden,  143  ; suspends  Stanton, 
142,  143  ; Mississippi  vs.  Johnson, 
145,  195  ; supersedes  Pope  with 
Meade,  153 ; the  attempt  to  im- 
peach, 157-194;  message  on  sus- 
pension of  Stanton,  160-163  ; rela- 
tions with  Grant,  164-168 ; super- 
sedes Stanton  with  Thomas,  169, 
170;  Covode  resolution,  171  ; ac- 
tion of  House  on  impeachment, 
173  et  seq.;  vetoes  overridden,  197, 
199,302;  proclaims  reconstruction 
completed.  203  ; conduct  in  cam- 
paign of  1868,  213 ; last  annual 
message,  214  ; proclamation  of 


Dec.,  1868,  215;  veto  of  colored 
school  bill.  216;  retirement,  218, 
219;  relations  with  republicans, 
219-221  ; policy  compared  with 
Grant’s,  230 

Johnson,  James,  appointed  governor 
of  Georgia,  37 

Johnson,  Reverdy,  on  joint  commit- 
tee on  reconstruction,  57  ; report 
on  reconstruction,  86 ; in  conven- 
tion of  1866,99;  offers  bill  on  re- 
construction, 117;  negotiates  treaty 
with  Clarendon,  303 

Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruction, 
57,  58  ; recommendation  on  repre- 
sentation, 74  ; proposes  bill,  80  ; 
its  bill  rejected,  82  ; final  report 
of,  84-86 

Joint  High  Commission,  307 

Julian,  George  W.,  on  impeachment 
committee,  174 ; joins  liberal  re- 
publicans, 264 

Kansas  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 

Kellogg,  Ensign  H. , on  Halifax  com- 
mission, 320,  321 

Kellogg,  William  P. , in  Louisiana 
politics,  270-272  ; certificate  in  1876 
election,  290 

Kendall  vs.  United  States  (12  Peters 
524),  144 

Kentucky,  reconstruction  in,  7,  13  ; 
in  Lincoln’s  message,  20;  in  elec- 
tion of  1866,  104  ; votes  for  Sey- 
mour, 212 ; election  of  1872  in, 
267 

Kenzie,  Lewis  M.,  in  convention  of 
1866,  100 

Kernan,  Francis,  in  convention  of 
1868,  209_ 

Koontz,  William  H. , approves  letter 
on  Alta  Vela  claims.  177 

Ku-Klux,  the,  250-252,  255  ; act  of 
April,  1871,  257,  258;  trials,  261 

Lawrence,  William  B.,  in  conven- 
tion of  1866,  99 

Lewis,  D.  P.,  elected  governor  of 
Alabama,  268 

Liberal  Republicans,  convention  of 
1872,  264, 265 ; in  campaign  of  1872, 
266 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  views  and  acts  as 
to  reconstruction,  8-30  ; his  pro- 
posed oath  of  allegiance,  10  ; atti- 


336 


INDEX 


tude  to  the  Pierpont  government, 
13;  course  toward  Louisiana,  14, 
15;  proclamation  of  July  8,  1864, 
18,  19;  message  of  Dec.  6,  1864, 
19,30;  renominated,  30;  re-elect- 
ed, 21  ; message  of  Feb.  8,  1865, 
22  ; views  of  powers  of  Congress, 
24  ; attitude  to  Brownlow’s  admin- 
istration, 26  ; nature  of  acts  as  to 
abolition,  26;  signs  resolution  on 
thirteenth  amendment,  29  ; assas- 
sinated, 30;  his  cabinet  retained 
by  Johnson,  32;  identity  of  plan 
of  reconstruction  with  Johnson’s, 
36 

Lindsay,  Robert  B. , course  as  gov- 
ernor of  Alabama,  268 

Logan,  John  A.,  on  impeachment 
committee,  174;  impeachment 
manager,  175  ; approves  letter  on 
Alta  Vela  claim,  177 

Louisiana,  in  Lincoln’s  proclama- 
tion, 11  ; Lincoln’s  acts  toward, 
12  ; presidential  reconstruction  in, 
14,  15;  in  Lincoln’s  message,  19; 
electoral  vote  of  1864  rejected,  21, 
22 ; attitude  of  Johnson  to,  38 ; 
vote  on  thirteenth  amendment, 
55 ; contest  for  control  of  state 
government,  92-98  ; in  the  recon- 
struction bill,  112  ; registration  in, 
147  ; election  in,  149 ; disfranchise- 
ments in,  150;  ratifies  constitu- 
tion, 155,  197 ; act  on  admission 
of  members  from,  198  ; reconstruc- 
tion declared  complete,  202 ; rati- 
fies fourteenth  amendment,  203, 
204;  votes  for  Seymour,  212;  cor- 
ruption in,  263  ; contest  for  polit- 
ical control  in, 269-272  ; contested 
electoral  vote  of  1876,  283,  289, 
290  ; change  of  administration, 
296 

Louisville,  Ky. , democratic  conven- 
tion at,  267 

Loyal  League,  the,  250,  252 

Luther  vs.  Borden,  (7  Howard  1),  144 

Lynch,  John,  in  Louisiana  politics, 
'269-272 

Macdonald,  John,  on  Joint  High 
Commission,  307 

McCardle,  William  H , case  of,  195, 
196 

McClellan,  George  B. , nominated  for 
presidency,  20 ; electoral  votes,  21 


McClernand,  John  A.,  in  Cleveland 
convention,  101 

McCrary,  George  W. , suggests  elec- 
toral commission,  284 

McEnery,  John,  in  Louisiana  poli- 
tics, 270-272;  certificate  in  1876 
election,  290 

Maine,  election  of  18C6  in,  103;  rat- 
ifies fourteenth  amendment,  203, 
204  ; election  of  1872  in,  267 

Marvin,  William,  appointed  gov- 
ernor of  Florida,  37 

Maryland,  in  Lincoln’s  message,  20  ; 
in  election  of  1866,  104 ; votes  for 
Seymour,  212;  election  of  1872  in, 
267 

Massachusetts  ratifies  fourteenth 
amendment,  203,  204 

Matthews,  Stanley,  in  convention  of 
1866,  100 ; joins  liberal  republi- 
cans, 264  ; counsel  before  electoral 
commission,  291 

Meade,  George  G.,  supersedes  Pope, 
152  ; report  on  Alabama  election, 
153;  removes  Jenkins,  155;  proc- 
lamation of  June,  1868,  238,  239 

Merrick,  Richard  T. , counsel  before 
electoral  commission,  291 

Michigan  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 

Miller,  J.  N.  Y. , Oregon  elector  of 
1876,  291 

Miller,  Samuel  F. , on  electoral  com- 
mission, 286 

Miller  enters  Senate  from  Georgia, 
244 

Minnesota  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 

Mississippi,  in  Lincoln’s  proclama- 
tion, 11  ; electoral  vote  of  1864  re- 
jected, 22  ; reconstruction  in,  37  ; 
convention  in,  38 ; rejects  thir- 
teenth amendment.  39 ; law  on 
vagrancy,  etc. , 46-52,  62  ; opinion 
of  this  legislation,  53;  in  the  re- 
construction bill,  112 ; Mississippi 
vs.  Johnson,  145  ; registration  in, 
147 ; election  in,  149 ; disfran- 
chisements in,  151  ; constitution 
rejected  in,  156 ; arrest  of  Mc- 
Cardle in,  196  ; martial  law  in, 
202  ; no  share  in  election  of  1868, 
212 ; ratification  of  constitution, 
229  ; restored  to  federal  relations, 
229  ; negro  rule  in,  249  ; political 
conditions  in  1875,  274,  275 


INDEX 


337 


Mississippi  vs.  Johnson  (4  Wallace 
475),  145,  193,  195 

Missouri,  Reconstruction  in,  7,  13; 
in  Lincoln’s  message,  20 ; ratifies 
fourteenth  amendment,  203,  204 ; 
liberal  republicans  in,  265;  elec- 
tion of  1872  in,  267 
Monroe,  John  T.,  as  Mayor  of  New 
Orleans,  94 

Montgomery,  Ala.,  made  head-quar- 
ters of  third  military  district, 
135 

Moorehead,  James  K.,  approves  letter 
on  Alta  Vela  claims,  177 
Morgan.  Edwin  D.,  vote  on  Freed- 
men's  Bureau  bill,  67 
Mo  rill,  Justin  S.,  on  joint  commit- 
tee on  reconstruction,  57 
Morse,  Alexander  P. , counsel  before 
electoral  commission,  291 
Morton,  Oliver  P. , in  convention  of 
1866,  100;  in  convention  of  1876, 
281  ; on  electoral  commission,  286 ; 
resolution  on  Santo  Domingo, 
325 

Moses,  F.  J.,  connection  with  South 
Carolina  corruption,  262 
Moses,  F.  J.,  Jr.,  judge-elect  of 
South  Carolina,  274 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  convention  at, 

236 

National  Nominating  Conventions, 
radical  republican  of  1864,  20; 
democratic  of  1864,  20;  republi- 
can of  1864,  20 ; of  1866,  99-102 ; 
republican  of  1868,  207  ; democrat- 
ic of  1868,  208 ; liberal  republi- 
can of  1872,  264,  265;  democratic 
of  1872,  266 ; republican  of  1868, 
267 ; republican  of  1876,  280,  281  ; 
democratic  of  1876,  283 
Nebraska  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 

Nelson,  Samuel,  on  Joint  High  Com- 
mission, 307 

Nelson,  Thomas  A.  R.,  counsel  for 
Johnson,  176 

Nevada  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 

New  Hampshire  ratifies  fourteenth 
amendment,  203,  204 
New  Jersey,  ratifies  fourteenth 
amendment,  203,  204 ; withdrawal 
of  ratification,  203,  205,  206  ; votes 
for  Seymour,  212 
22 


New  Orleans,  La.,  convention  at,  14 ; 
riot  at,  92-98 ; head-quarters  of 
fifth  military  district,  135 
New  York,  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204  ; votes  for  Seymour, 
212 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  democratic  con- 
vention of  1868  at,  208 
New  York  Tribune  prints  protest  of 
Wade  and  Davis,  19 
Niblack,  William  E. , motion  in 
House,  43 

Nicholls  Francis  T.,  becomes  gov- 
ernor of  Louisiana,  296 
North  Carolina,  in  Lincoln’s  procla- 
mation, 11 ; electoral  vote  of  1 864 
rejected,  22  ; reconstruction  in,  35 ; 
convention  in,  38 ; vote  on  thir- 
teenth amendment,  55 ; in  the 
reconstruction  bill,  112  ; registra- 
tion in,  147 ; election  in,  149  ; rati- 
fies constitution,  155,  197  ; act  on 
admission  of  members  from,  198; 
reconstruction  declared  complete, 
202;  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  2r  4 ; recovery  from 
negro  rule,  249 

Northcote,  Stafford,  on  Joint  High 
Commission,  307 
Northwest  Ordinance,  27 
Norton,  Daniel  S.,  action  on  the 
Stevens  resolution,  57 ; vote  on 
impeachment,  191 

O’Conor,  Charles,  nominated  for 
presidency,  267 ; counsel  before 
electoral  commission,  291 
Odell,  W.  H. , Oregon  elector  of  1876, 
291 

Ohio,  election  of  1866  in,  103;  vote 
on  negro  suffrage  in,  148 ; ratifies 
fourteenth  amendment,  203,  204  ; 
withdrawal  of  ratification,  213, 
205,  206  ; election  of  1872  in,  267 
Ord,  Edward  O.  C.,  in  fourth  mili- 
tary district,  135 

Oregon,  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204  ; votes  for  Seymour, 
212 ; contested  electoral  returns  of 
1876,  289-291 

Packard,  S.  B.,  takes  possession  of 
Louisiana  capitol,  271 ; retires 
from  office  of  governor,  296 
Palmer,  Roundell,  at  Geneva  arbi- 
tration. 311 


338 


INDEX 


Parker,  John,  Oregon  elector  of  1876, 
291 

Parsons,  Lewis  E. , appointed  gov- 
ernor of  Alabama,  37 

Paschal,  George  \V.,  in  convention 
of  1886,  100 

Patterson,  David  T. , vote  on  im- 
peachment, 191 

Payne,  Henry  B.,  on  electoral  com- 
mission, 286 

Pendleton,  George  H.,  nominated 
for  vice-presidency,  21  ; candidate 
for  presidential  nomination,  208 

Pennsylvania,  election  of  1866  in, 
103 ; ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204  ; election  of  1872 
in,  267 

Perry,  Benjamin  F. , appointed  gov- 
ernor of  South  Carolina,  37 

Philadelphia,  Penn.,  conventions  of 
1866  at,  99,  100;  republican  con- 
vention of  1 872  at,  267 

Phillips,  Wendell,  characterized  by 
Johnson,  67 

Pierpont,  Francis  H. , attitude  of 
Lincoln  to.  13  ; supported  by  John- 
son, 37,  224 

Pinchback,  P.  B.  S.,  in  Louisiana 
politics,  269,  272 

Pittsburg,  Penn.,  soldier  convention 
at,  101 

Poland,  Luke  P.  connection  with 
Thomas  case,  174 

Pope,  John,  in  third  military  dis- 
trict, 136 ; injunction  sought 
against,  146  ; election  orders,  151  ; 
recalled,  152 

Preston,  William,  in  convention  of 

1868,  210 

Pulaski,  Tenn. , place  of  origin  of 
Ku-Klux,  250 

Randall,  Alexander  W. , appoint- 
ed postmaster-general,  90 ; accom- 
panies Johnson  to  the  West,  102 

Rawlins,  John  A.,  becomes  secretary 
of  war,  232 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  views  on  re- 
construction, 59 ; vote  on  four- 
teenth amendment,  87  ; in  conven- 
tion of  1866,  99 

Reconstruction,  theory  of,  1-7 ; Lin- 
coln’s views  and  acts  as  to,  8-30 ; 
Seward’s  view  of,  12;  in  Louisi- 
ana, 14 ; the  Wade-Davis  bill, 
15-18 ; relation  of  party  conven- 


tions to,  20  ; in  Tennessee,  23,  25  ; 
Johnson’s  plan  as  to,  31^11  ; in 
North  Carolina,  35  ; in  the  several 
States,  37,  38;  views  of  House  on, 
43  ; attitude  of  republicans,  44  ; 
joint  committee  on,  57 ; views  of 
Stevens,  58 ; views  of  Raymond 
and  Shellabarger,  59 ; theory  of 
Sumner,  60 ; reports  of  congres- 
sional committee,  84-86 ; as  an 
issue  in  the  campaign  of  1866,  98  ; 
Johnson’s  defence  of  his  policy  as 
to,  102;  bill  in  the  House,  112- 
114;  the  Blaine  amendment,  115, 
116;  the  Sherman  bill,  117;  the 
bill  as  finally  passed,  118-122  ; ve- 
toed by  Johnson,  126;  republican 
motives  in,  127  ; supplemental  bill 
on,  129-131  ; vetoed,  132;  acts  on, 
criticised,  133,  134;  application  of 
acts  on,  135-137  ; congressional 
interpretation  of  acts  on,  138;  bill 
interpreting  the  statutes  on,  140; 
application  of  statutes  on,  146  et 
seq.  ; process  of,  declared  com- 
pleted, 202 ; attitude  of  Grant 
toward.  223  ; end  of  legislation  on, 
244  ; reconstruction  characterized, 
297.  See  Statutes 
Republican  party,  schism  threat- 
| ened  in,  20;  attitude  to  recon- 
struction, 44  ; attitude  to  southern 
legislation,  52,  54;  feeling  toward 
southern  congressmen,  56 ; alti- 
tude to  views  of  Stevens,  Raymond 
and  Shellabarger,  59  ; attitude  to 
presidential  reconstruction,  60,  61 ; 
position  on  civil  rights,  62 ; atti- 
tude to  Freedmen’s  Bureau  bill, 
89;  attitude  to  Stanton,  90,  91  ; 
in  campaign  of  1866,  99,  101  ; 
convention  of  1866,  104 ; in  elec- 
tion of  1 866,  104 ; views  on  recon- 
struction, 110,  111  ; motives  in  Re- 
construction, 127 ; interpretation 
of  Johnson’s  message,  160;  action 
in  vote  on  impeachment,  191  ; 
effect  of  McCardle  case  on,  197; 
convention  of  1868,  207 ; criticism 
of  views  of,  217 ; relations  with 
Johnson,  219-221 ; control  of 
Grant,  257 ; revolt  in  the  party, 
264,  265  ; convention  of  1872,  267  ; 
get  control  of  Alabama  legislature, 
268,  269  ; lose  control  in  Congress, 
273 ; financial  policy,  276 ; con- 


INDEX 


339 


vention  of  1876,  280,  281  ; cam- 
paign of  1876,  2S3  et  seq.;  views 
as  to  powers  of  Congress,  292 
Retribution,  the,  case  of,  316 
Rhode  Island  ratifies  fourteenth 
amendment,  203,  204 
Richmond,  Va.,  made  head-quarters 
of  first  military  district,  135 ; 
convention  at,  226,  227 
Robeson,  George  M. , becomes  sec- 
retary of  the  navy,  232 
Rogers,  Andrew  J.,  on  joint  com- 
mittee on  reconstruction,  57 
Rose,  John,  mission  of,  306 
Ross,  Edmund  G.,  vote  on  impeach- 
ment, 191 

Rousseau,  Lovell  H.,  in  Cleveland 
convention,  101 

Russia,  purchase  of  Alaska  from, 
300-302 

Safford,  M.  J. , in  convention  of 
1866,  100 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Johnson’s  speech  at, 
102 

Samana  Bay,  324,  327 
Santo  Domingo,  Sumner’s  position 
as  to,  264 ; attempt  to  annex  to 
United  States,  323-327 
Schaffner  law,  the,  249 
Schell,  Augustus,  in  convention  of 
1868,  209 

Schenck,  Robert  C. , in  convention 
of  1866,  100  ; on  Joint  High  Com- 
mission, 307  ; at  London,  312 
Schofield,  John  M. , assigned  to  first 
military  district,  135,  226 ; nomi- 
nated as  secretary  of  war,  190; 
confirmed,  192  ; retained  by  Grant, 
231  ; resigns,  232 

Schriver,  General,  in  Stanton- 
Thomas  incident,  169,  170,  172, 
173 

Schurz,  Carl,  report  on  conditions  at 
the  South,  63 ; in  convention  of 
1866,  100  ; joins  liberal  republi- 
cans, 264 

Sclopis,  Frederic,  at  Geneva  arbitra- 
tion, 311,  316,  317 

Scott,  R.  K.,  views  of  Ku-Klux,  etc., 
259 

Senate  of  the  United  States,  refuses 
seats  to  members  from  Arkansas, 
15  ; adopts  thirteenth  amendment, 
26-28;  the  Stevens  resolution,  43, 
’ 44,  57 ; passes  Freedmen’s  Bureau 


bill,  66 ; passes  civil  rights  bill, 
70,  73;  effect  of  election  of  1866, 
104 ; passes  reconstruction  bill, 
118;  tenure-of-office  bill  in,  122, 
125  ; passes  resolution  on  confisca- 
tion act,  122  ; bill  on  reconstructed 
States,  153  ; action  on  suspension 
of  Stanton,  162,  163;  action  on 
dismissal  of  Stanton,  170;  acts  as 
court  of  impeachment,  176  et  seq. ; 
vote  on  impeachment,  190,  191  ; 
confirms  Schofield,  192;  resolution 
on  the  amnesty  proclamation,  215, 
216 ; confirms  Grant’s  nominees, 
232  ; admits  members  from  Geor- 
gia, 244  ; currency  bill  in,  277 ; 
ratifies  treaty  with  Russia,  300 ; 
rejects  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty, 
303 ; rejects  Dominican  treaty, 
324,  325.  See  Congress  of  the 
United  States ; Statutes  of  the 
United  States 

Seward,  William  H. , views  on  re- 
construction, 12 ; sends  thirteenth 
amendment  to  states,  29 ; retained 
by  Johnson,  32 ; calculation  as 
to  thirteenth  amendment,  52,  55, 
56 ; announces  adoption  of  thir- 
teenth amendment,  55  ; action  on 
fourteenth  amendment,  80  ; accom- 
panies Johnson  to  the  west,  102  ; 
influence  on  Johnson,  124 ; pro- 
claims ratification  of  fourteenth 
amendment,  202 ; procedure  as  to 
the  proclamation,  203-205 ; nego- 
tiates purchase  of  Alaska,  300-301  ; 
negotiates  treaty  with  China,  322  ; 
instructions  to  Babcock,  323 
Seymour,  Horatio,  nominated  for 
presidency,  210;  defeated,  212 
Shaffer,  J.  W.,  secures  letter  on 
Alta  Vela  claims,  177 
Sharkey,  William  L.,  appointed  gov- 
ernor of  Mississippi,  37  ; institutes 
suit  against  Johnson,  l45 
Shellabarger,  Samuel,  theory  of  re- 
construction, 59-61  ; counsel  be- 
fore electoral  commission,  291  ; 
opinion  of  purchase  of  Alaska,  300 
Shenandoah , the,  case  of,  316,  317 
Shepley,  George  F.,  military  govern- 
or of  Louisiana,  14 
Sheridan,  Philip  H. , New  Orleans 
riot,  94,  97  ; in  fifth  military  dis- 
trict, 135  ; superseded  by  Hancock, 
143 


340 


INDEX 


Sherman,  John,  offers  bill  on  recon- 
struction, 117  ; father-in-law  of 
Ewing,  173  ; reports  currency  bill, 
277 

Sickles,  Daniel  E.,in  second  military 
district,  135  ; superseded  by  Cau- 
by,  143 

Sinclair,  John  G. , in  convention  of 
1866,  99 

Skinner,  J.  B.  L. , postmaster-gen- 
eral ad  interim,  186,  188 

Slavery,  adoption  of  the  thirteenth 
amendment,  26-30 

South  Carolina,  in  Lincoln’s  proc- 
lamation, 11  ; electoral  vote  of  1864 
rejected,  22 ; reconstruction  in,  37  ; 
convention  and  election  in,  38 ; 
law  on  vagrancy,  46;  vote  on  thir- 
teenth amendment,  55  ; in  the  re- 
construction bill,  112  ; registration 
in,  147 ; election  in,  149  ; character 
of  convention  in.  150  ; ratifies  con- 
stitution, 155,  197  ; acton  admis- 
sion of  members  from,  198  ; recon- 
struction declared  complete,  202 ; 
ratifies  fourteenth  amendment, 
203,  204 ; request  of  governor  for 
troops,  258  ; proclamations  of  pres- 
ident as  to,  260,  261  ; corruption 
in,  262 ; conditions  in  1874,  274  ; 
contested  electoral  returns  of  1876, 
283,  289 ; change  of  administra- 
tion, 296 

Spaulding,  J.  R.,  joins  liberal  repub- 
licans, 264 

Speed,  James,  resignation,  90,  142  ; 
in  convention  of  1866,  100,  101 

Staempfli,  Jacob,  at  Geneva  arbitra- 
tion, 311,315,  316 

Stanbery,  Henry,  appointed  attor- 
ney-general, 90  ; in  case  of  Missis- 
sippi vs.  Johnson,  145  ; in  case  of 
Georgia  vs.  Stanton,  146  ; arrest  of 
Thomas,  172;  counsel  for  Johnson, 
176 

Stanley,  Lord,  secretary  for  foreign 
affairs,  303 

Stanton,  Edwin  M. , attitude  to  John- 
son, 90,  91 ; as  to  the  New  Orleans 
riot,  95,  96 ; dissents  from  instruc- 
tions on  reconstruction,  136  ; dis- 
trusted by  Johnson, 140  ; suspend- 
ed, 142, 143,  158  ; case  of  Georgia 
vs.  Stanton,  146,  195  ; message  on 
suspension  of,  160-162 ; action  of 
Senate  as  to,  162, 163  ; superseded 


by  Thomas,  169-172  ; removal  dis- 
cussed before  Senate,  178,  179; 
power  to  remove,  185;  his  viola- 
tions of  law,  189  ; abdication,  192 

Statutes  of  the  United  StateB,  of 
Aug.  7,  1789,  184 ; of  May  8,  1792, 
186, 187  ; of  Feb.  13. 1795,  179, 186, 
187  ; of  July  31,  1861,  175;  of  Feb. 
20,  1863,  187,  188  ; of  Mar.  3,  1865, 
44,  64,  65,  89  ; of  April  9,  1866,  68- 
73;  of  July  16,  1866,  87-90;  of 
Feb.  5,  1873,  197;  of  Mar.  2,  1867 
(on  reconstruction),  112-121,  126, 
136.  159,  160,  175,  179,  193,  197, 
215, 235, 239,  243,  245,  247,  250-213 
of  Mar.  2,  1867  (on  tenure-of-of 
fice),  122-126,  160-163,  165,  166 
174,  178,  181,  184,  185,  188,  189, 
214,  231-234;  of  Mar.  11,  1867, 
155;  of  Mar.  23,  1867,  129-133, 
136,  159,  160,  193,  197,  235,  245, 
247,  250-253;  of  June  22,  1868, 
198;  of  June  25,  1868,  202,  241, 
249;  of  June  28, 1868,  198 ; of  July 
26,  1868,  302;  of  Mar.  18,  1869. 
276,  277;  of  April  10,  1869,  229; 
of  Dec.  22,  1869,  239  ; of  May  31, 

1870,  255,  256;  of  Julv  14,  1870, 
276,  278  ; of  July  15,  1870,  244  ; of 
Jan.  20,  1871,  276;  of  Feb.  28, 

1871,  256;  of  April  20,  1871,  257, 
260,  261  ; of  May  22,  1872,  268  ; of 
Jan.  14.  1875,  279.  283 

Stearns,  M.  L. , retires  as  governor 
of  Florida,  296 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  seekB  seat 
in  Congress,  56 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  proposes  substi- 
tute thirteenth  amendment,  28 ; 
resolution  on  representation,  42- 
44,  57  ; view  of  Mississippi  legis- 
lation, 53 ; on  committee  on  recon- 
struction, 57  ; views  of  reconstruc- 
tion, 58  ; characterized  by  Johnson, 
67  ; view  as  to  effect  of  secession, 
81  ; introduces  bill  on  reconstruc- 
tion, 112;  refuses  to  accept  the 
Blaine  amendment,  115,  116;  on 
impeachment  committee,  174  ; im- 
peachment manager,  175;  approves 
letter  on  Alta  Vela  claims,  177  ; 
views  on  purchase  of  Alaska, 
300 

Stewart,  Alexander  T.,  nominated 
for  secretary  of  treasury,  231 ; 
declines,  232 


INDEX 


341 


Stockton,  John  P. , in  convention  of 
1866,  99 

Stoeckl,  Baron,  negotiates  treaty  for 
sale  of  Alaska,  300 

Stone,  John  H.,  elected  governor  of 
Mississippi,  276 

Stoughton,  E.  W.,  counsel  before 
electoral  commission,  291 

Strong,  William,  on  electoral  com- 
mission, 286 

Sumner,  Charles,  theory  of  recon- 
struction, 60,  61  ; characterized  by 
Johnson,  67  ; joins  liberal  repub- 
licans, 264  ; relations  with  Grant, 
264,  325 

Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
relation  of  dicta  to  reconstruc- 
tion, 12  ; decisions,  144-146,  179, 
195  196 

Swayne,  Noah  H. , 289 

Tennessee,  in  Lincoln’s  proclama- 
tion, 11  ; in  Lincoln’s  message, 
20;  electoral  vote  of  1864  rejected, 
21,  22  ; Reconstruction  in,  23,  25  ; 
civil  government  established  in, 
25 ; ratifies  thirteenth  amendment, 
30;  attitude  of  Johnson  to,  38; 
vote  on  thirteenth  amendment, 
55 ; ratifies  fourteenth  amendment, 
82,  83  ; ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 ; election  of  1872 
in,  267 

Tenterden,  Lord,  at  Geneva  arbitra- 
tion, 311 

Tenure-of-Office  Bill,  the,  intro- 
duced, 122  123 ; contents,  124, 
125  ; vetoed,  125  ; case  of  Stanton, 
162  et  seq.  See  Statutes 

Terry,  Alfred  H.,  modifies  Virginia 
vagrant  act,  225,  226 ; resumes 
military  control  in  Georgia,  239 

Texas,  in  Lincoln’s  proclamation, 
11 ; electoral  vote  of  1864  rejected, 
22 ; war  declared  ended  in,  103  ; 
in  the  reconstruction  bill,  112; 
registration  in,  147 ; election  in, 
149  ; martial  law  in,  202  ; no  share 
in  election  of  1868,  212;  restored 
to  federal  relations,  229,  230  ; es- 
cape from  negro  rule,  247-249 ; 
election  of  1872  in,  267  ; change  in 
character  of  government,  273 

Thomas,  George  H. , in  third  mili- 
tary district,  135  ; transferred,  136 

Thomas,  Lorenzo,  appointed  to  su- 


persede Stanton,  169-173  ; his  posi- 
tion discussed  before  Senate,  179, 
181  ; law  as  to  appointment  of,  186 
Thornton,  Edward,  negotiations  at 
Washington,  306,  307 
Thurman,  Allen  G. , on  electoral 
commission,  286 

Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  in  convention  of 
1866,  99  ; in  convention  of  1868, 
209 ; nominated  for  presidency, 
282  ; the  campaign,  283  et  seq. 
Townsend,  E.  D.,  orders  from  Stan- 
ton, 170;  in  temporary  charge  of 
war  department,  192 
Trumbull,  Lyman,  reports  thir- 
teenth amendment,  26  ; in  conven- 
tion of  1866,  109;  opinion  on  im- 
peachment, 184;  view  of  the 
Stanton  case,  189 ; vote  on  im- 
peachment, 191  ; proposal  as  to 
Tenure-of-Office  Act,  233 ; joins 
liberal  republicans,  264  ; candidate 
for  presidential  nomination,  265  ; 
counsel  before  electoral  commis- 
sion, 291 

Twenty-second  joint  rule  of  Con- 
gress, 24,  25 

Union  Leagues,  formation  of,  250, 
252 

Vallandigham,  Clement  L.,  in 
convention  of  1866,  99 
Van  Winkle,  Peter  G.,  view  of  the 
Stanton  case,  189 ; vote  on  im- 
peachment, 191 

Vermont,  election  of  1866  in,  103; 
ratifies  fourteenth  amendment, 
203,  204 ; election  of  1§72  in,  267 
Vicksburg,  Miss.,  made  head-quar- 
ters of  fourth  military  district,  135 
Virginia,  reconstruction  in,  7 ; omis- 
sion from  Lincoln’s  proclamation, 
13 ; electoral  vote  of  1864  rejected, 
22  ; reconstruction  in,  37 ; vote  on 
thirteenth  amendment,  55  ; in  the 
reconstruction  bill,  112,  l22 ; reg- 
istration in,  147 ; election  in,  149  ; 
disfranchisements  in,  151  ; martial 
law  in,  202 ; no  share  in  election 
of  1868,  212  ; question  in  Congress 
as  to  representation,  224 ; parti- 
tion of,  224  ; the  vagrant  act,  225, 
226  ; a military  district,  226,  227  ; 
restored  to  federal  relations,  228  ; 
escape  from  negro  rule,  247,  248 


342 


INDEX 


Wade,  Benjamin  F.,  bill  on  recon- 
struction, 15-18 ; protest  against 
Lincoln’s  proclamation,  19;  opin- 
ion of  Johnson,  32;  commissioner 
to  Santo  Domingo,  326 
Waite,  Morrison  R.,  289  ; at  Geneva 
arbitration,  311 

Walker,  Robert  J.,  in  case  of  Mis- 
sissippi vs.  Johnson,  145 
War  Department,  Freedmen’s  Bu- 
reau organized  in,  44 
Ward,  Hamilton,  on  impeachment 
committee,  174 

Warmoth,  Henry  C. , connection 
with  Louisiana  corruption,  263 ; 
contest  for  control  in  Louisiana, 
269-272 

Washburne,  Elihu  B.,  on  joint  com- 
mittee on  reconstruction,  57  ; be- 
comes secretary  of  state,  231 ; re- 
signs, 232 

Washington,  treaty  of,  299,  307-310, 
319 

Watts,  John  W. , Oregon  elector  in 
1876,  290,  291 

Welles,  Gideon,  accompanies  John- 
son to  the  west,  102 
Wells,  David  A.,  joins  liberal  repub- 
licans, 264 

Wells,  J.  Madison,  in  contest  for 
control  of  Louisiana,  93 
Welsh  pays  Halifax  award,  322 
West  Virginia  ratifies  fourteenth 
amendment,  203,  204 
Wharton,  John,  in  Louisiana  politics, 
269,  270 

Wheeler,  William  A. , nominated  for 


vice-presidency,  282  ; election  for- 
mally declared,  294 
Wheeling,  W.  Va. , government  at, 
224 

Whipper,  W.  J. , judge-elect  of  South 
Carolina,  274 
Whiskey  ring,  272 

White,  Andrew  D.,  commissioner  to 
Santo  Domingo,  326 
White,  Horace,  joins  liberal  repub 
licans,  264 

White  vs.  Clements,  237 
Whitney,  William  C. , counsel  before 
electoral  commission,  291 
William  I. , Emperor,  award  as  to 
northwest  boundary,  319 
Williams,  George  H.,  offers  bill  on 
reconstruction,  117 ; introduces 
tenure-of-office  bill,  122  ; impeach- 
ment manager,  175;  motions, 
191;  on  Joint  High  Commission, 
307 

Wilson,  Henry,  theory  of  reconstruc- 
tion, 60 ; on  impeachment  com- 
mittee, 174 ; impeachment  man- 
ager, 175;  elected  vice-president, 
267 

Windom,  William,  introduces  thir- 
teenth amendment  in  House,  28 
Winthrop,  Robert  C.,  in  convention 
of  1866,  99 

Wisconsin  ratifies  fourteenth  amend- 
ment, 203,  204 

Wood,  Fernando,  in  convention  of 
1866,  99 

Wool,  John  E. , in  Cleveland  con- 
vention, 101 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


“The  ‘American  History  Series,’  now  in  the  course  of 
publication  by  the  Scribners,  constitutes  one  of  the  most 
valuable  contributions  as  yet  made  to  the  connected  history 
of  the  United  States,  and  is  certain  to  find  a place  in  every 
city  and  town  library,  and  among  the  prescribed  text-books 
of  our  colleges  and  schools.”—  The  New  York  Sun. 

A series  of  seven  volumes  containing  a connected 
history  of  the  United  States  from  the  discovery  of 
America  to  the  present  day.  Divided  into  four  distinct 
epochs,  each  of  which  is  treated  by  a writer  of  eminence 
and  of  special  authority  in  this  field.  The  volumes  are 
sold  separately  and  each  contains  maps  and  plans. 

The  authorship  represents  the  best  scholarship  of  the 
times. 

The  literary  value  of  each  volume  is  noteworthy. 

The  student  has  here  a comprehensive  history  prepared 
expressly  for  his  use  by  men  experienced  in  the  needs 
and  methods  of  class  instruction. 

The  general  reader  finds  what  he  is  constantly  seeking, 
an  authentic  account  which  he  can  read  as  he  would  a 
story  and  rely  upon  as  an  impartial  recital  of  events. 

The  volumes  are  sold  separately,  enabling  those  inter- 
ested in  one  distinct  epoch  to  find  what  they  wish  with- 
out unnecessary  expense. 

Sent,  postpaid , at  the  given  price.  Correspondence  in 
regard  to  class  use  particularly  invited. 

“ For  practical  service  in  the  American  college  curriculum 
this  Series  thus  far  is  admirably  suited.  Nothing  better  has 
yet  been  proposed  as  a plan  of  instruction  in  American 
history  than! these  four  books." — President  John  Franklin 
Crowell,  Trinity  College,  N.  C. 

OVER 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


THE  COLONIAL  ERA 

1402-1756 

By  Rev.  George  P.  Fisher,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Yale  University.  With 
3 maps.  i2mo,  $1.00  net. 

“We  know  of  no  other  work  which  in  the  compass  of  a 
single  volume  offers  so  complete  and  satisfactory  a conspectus 
of  the  subject,  and  we  have  therefore  no  hesitation  in  com- 
mending this  book  as  particularly  adapted  to  the  needs  of 
schools  and  colleges.” — N.  Y.  Sun. 

“ Professor  Fisher  has  given  us  a compact,  suggestive  and 
readable  account  of  our  colonial  history— the  best  brief 
sketch  of  the  period  of  which  it  treats.” — N.  Y.  Evening  Post. 

“ Professor  Fisher’s  work  shows  the  hand  of  a master  still 
in  its  strength.  He  seems  to  have  a positive  genius  for  clear, 
compact,  and  readable  condensation.” — The  Critic. 

THE  FRENCH  WAR  AND  THE 
REVOLUTION 

1756-1783 

By  William  M.  Sloane,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History 
in  Columbia  University.  With  maps.  i2mo, 
$i.oo  net. 

“ I have  read  very  carefully,  and  with  great  interest  and 
pleasure,  Professor  Sloane’s  book  on  'The  French  War  and 
the  Revolution  ’ Being  a field  in  which  I have  done  special 
work,  I have  been  gratified  to  find  my  own  conclusions  con- 
firmed by  a scholar  so  discriminating  and  so  thorough.  The 
book  seems  to  me  to  furnish  new  and  important  help  to  the 
study  and  understanding  of  the  great  period  of  which  it 
treats.” — Professor  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  Cornell  University. 

“ Professor  Sloane’s  sound  judgment,  his  remarkable  de- 
ductive powers,  keen  insight  and  tersely  vigorous  style  well 
qualify  him  for  the  work  he  undertook  and  in  which  he  is  so 
happily  successful.” — Boston  Transcript. 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE  NATION 

1783-1817 

By  General  Francis  A.  Walker,  President  of  the 

Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology.  With  maps. 

i2mo,  $1.00  net. 

“ Nothing  better  has  been  written  on  American  affairs  in 
the  era  between  the  Presidency  of  Washington  and  that  of 
Monroe.” — London  Spectator. 

“We  can  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  book  as  marked  by 
a pure  and  lively  style,  a sound  but  chastened  patriotism, 
and  a recognition  at  once  scholarly  and  practical  of  that 
transcendent  idea,  the  ‘Commonwealth  of  Nations.’” 

— The  Nation. 

“The  account  is  given  in  a remarkably  interesting  and 
almost  dramatic  manner,  with  absolute  simplicity  and  direct- 
ness, with  good  judgment  and  an  unfailing  sense  of  the  rela- 
tive value  of  things,  which  keeps  the  history  in  good  historical 
perspective.” — The  Independent. 

Three  Volumes  by  Prof.  John  W.  Burgess 
of  Columbia  University 

THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD 

1817-1860 

By  John  W.  Burgess,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 

Political  Science  and  Constitutional  Law  in  Columbia 

University.  With  maps.  i2mo,  $i.oo  net. 

“ We  believe  that  never  before  have  these  questions  been 
so  clearly  presented  for  the  use  of  the  general  reader  as  in 
the  well-written  and  compact  pages  of  this  volume.” 

— The  Dial. 

“ It  may  be  said  in  closing  that  the  book  is  written  in  a 
style  at  once  lucid  and  picturesque,  and  while  there  is  no 
attempt  at  dramatic  expression  the  reader’s  interest  is  never 
allowed  to  lapse  because  of  uninteresting  methods  of  pre- 
senting facts.” — Brooklyn  Eagle. 

“ This  fourth  volume  of  the  ‘American  History  Series’  is 
in  point  of  excellence  fully  up  to  the  high  standard  of  the 
three  remarkable  preceding  volumes.” — Chicago  Tribune. 


THE  AMERICAN  HISTORY  SERIES 


THE  CIVIL  WAR  AND  THE 
CONSTITUTION 

By  John  W.  Burgess,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Political  Science  and  Constitutional  Law  in  Columbia 
University.  With  maps.  i2mo,  in  two  volumes, 
$ 2.00  net. 

The  fifth  number  in  the  “ American  History  Series  ” 
will  ably  sustain  the  high  reputation  of  the  preceding 
issues.  It  covers  the  interesting  and  most  important 
period  of  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction.  It  is 
eminently  a constitutional  history  in  its  discussion  of 
the  points  at  issue  in  the  light  of  public  law  and  political 
science,  but  it  is  also  a stirring  and  graphic  account  of 
the  events  of  the  war  (in  which  the  author  was  a par- 
ticipator). An  especial  feature  of  the  book  is  its  brilliant 
and  searching  portraiture  of  the  great  personalities  con- 
cerned in  the  contest  on  both  sides, 

IN  PREPARATION 

RECONSTRUCTION  AND  THE 
CONSTITUTION 

By  Prof.  John  W.  Burgess,  Professor  of  Political 
Science  and  Constitutional  Law  in  Columbia  Uni- 
versity. 


Charles  Scribner’s  Sons 

PUBLISHERS 

153*157  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


